MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ferrite Formation above the Ae<sub>3</sub> Temperature during the Torsion Simulation of Strip Rolling

2015· article· en· W2304293691 on OpenAlexafffund
Clodualdo Aranas, Samuel Filgueiras Rodrigues, Rupanjit Grewal, John J. Jonas

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMaterials scienceIsothermal processSofteningVolume fractionTorsion (gastropod)Ferrite (magnet)Dynamic recrystallizationMicroalloyed steelRecrystallization (geology)MetallurgyFlow stressMicrostructureComposite materialAusteniteThermodynamicsHot workingPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Torsion simulations of 7-pass strip rolling were carried out on a 0.06%C-0.3%Mn-0.01%Si and a 0.11%C-1.0%Mn-0.11%Si-0.03%Al-0.034%Nb steel using pass strains of 0.4 applied at 1 s−1. The deformations were imposed isothermally at 910°C and 930°C for the C–Mn and the Nb microalloyed steel, respectively. The flow curve levels decreased from pass to pass as a result of softening by both dynamic transformation (DT) and dynamic recrystallization (DRX). The application of double differentiation to the stress-strain curves led to average critical strains for the initiation of DT and DRX of about 0.06 and 0.11, respectively. Optical microscopy revealed that the volume fraction of DT ferrite increased continuously right up to the last pass. The fraction of DT ferrite formed and retained was significantly higher when short interpass times were used. Comparison of the behaviors of the C–Mn and Nb steels indicates that Nb addition retards both the forward as well as the reverse transformation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207