MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2209018790 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v5n1p77

Structure and Properties of Cast Iron DESIGNATED for Working Layer of Rolls

2015· article· en· W2209018790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
К. Н. Вдовин, А. Н. Завалищин, D. A. Gorlenko, Н. А. Феоктистов

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetal Alloys Wear and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusteniteMaterials scienceCarbideMartensiteMetallurgyBainiteCast ironCentrifugal casting (silversmithing)CastingTemperingEutectic systemGraphiteAlloyComposite materialMicrostructureMold

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">The formation of the structure and properties of cast irons designated for the working layer during solidification and subsequent tempering of Indefinite Chill Double Poured Centrifugal Casting Rolls (ICDP) has been studied.</p><p class="1Body">Graphitization of cast irons designated for the working layer of rolls occurs under isothermal conditions at high temperatures, which vary over the cross section and resulted from casting the roll core. At subsequent slow cooling, secondary carbides precipitate and austenite partially transforms into martensite; the resulting end structure consists of martensite and austenite metallic base (primary austenite dendrites) with 11.4 per cent of retained austenite, 26 per cent of eutectic and secondary carbides, and 2.6 per cent of flake graphite.<em> </em></p><p class="1Body">The amount of retained austenite in the metallic base of the cast structure of cast iron designated for the working layer, heated to 430 °C, decreases<strong> </strong>from 11.4 per cent to 3.2 per cent due to the partial transformation into bainite. The martensite tetragonality decreases due to the carbide precipitation; the existing excess phases grow and the new ones are formed; the total volume fraction of the carbide phase increases to 29.8 per cent and graphite to 3.7 per cent.</p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.310
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.075 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicMetal Alloys Wear and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207