MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511525549 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2016.12.49

Intensity Correction and Pole Figure Measurement of Copper Metallic by XRD

2016· article· en· W2511525549 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Halo Dalshad Omar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPole figureCopperIntensity (physics)GrindingTexture (cosmology)Materials scienceSample (material)DiffractionMetalAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MetallurgyOpticsPhysicsComputer scienceChemistryImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research work the process of data intensity correction and pole figure measurement were investigated and analyzed by using X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) technique. Different corrections were studied, to see their influence on the crystallographic texture analysis. Specific software, which is Labotex was used to determine the pole figure for copper (Cu) metallic after which the data corrections have been made. The copper, Cu sample was simply prepared by a low cost method Mini Mill 2 Panalytical and the sample was rotated for 10 minutes by grinding the sample at high speed of 250 rpm.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207