MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2294667413 · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.6b00733

Nanoindentation Study of the Surface of Ion-Exchanged Lithium Silicate Glass

2016· article· en· W2294667413 on OpenAlexafffund
Courtney Calahoo, Xiaofang Zhang, Joseph Zwanziger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry C · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesis
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNanoindentationMaterials scienceComposite materialIndentation hardnessIonLithium (medication)IndentationSilicateCompressive strengthElastic modulusMicrostructureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variations in mechanical properties (stiffness and hardness) were measured as a function of case depth in ion-exchange glasses using nanoindentation. A simple silicate composition, 30Li 2 O–70Si 2 O, was exchanged (Li + ↔ K + ) at several different temperatures, below and above the glass transition, to evaluate the effect of exchange temperature on mechanical properties throughout the ion-exchange layer. Significant enhancements in Young’s modulus and hardness were found near the edge in ion-exchanged glasses and attributed to compressive stress and the mixed-alkali effect. Indent size effect-like behaviors were observed in the untreated and ion-exchange samples alike near the sample edge; this was explained by surface-condition sensitivity and compressive stress found within this region. The elastic recovery and resistance to plastic deformation were calculated to assess the effect of ion exchange on elastic and plastic mechanical responses. Microhardness measurements of the exchanged samples were also made for comparison.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry CSame topicAdvanced ceramic materials synthesisFrench-language works237,207