MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525414267 · doi:10.11159/mmme16.114

The Self-Propagating High Temperature Synthesis of Titanium Aluminides: A Parametric Study

2016· article· en· W2525414267 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mandana Adeli, S.H. Seyedein, M.R. Aboutalebi, Makoto Kobashi, N. Kanetake

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIntermetallics and Advanced Alloy Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTitaniumSelf-propagating high-temperature synthesisParametric statisticsMaterials scienceComputer scienceMetallurgyMicrostructureMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work reports experimental studies on self-propagating high-temperature synthesis of titanium aluminides. Powder mixture of different Ti:Al atomic ratios were adopted and pressed to make compacts. The compacts were heated up to the ignition temperature from one end using induction heating, giving rise to self-sustaining reaction along the compacts. The propagation of reaction front was monitored using a color CCD camera. X-ray Diffraction analyses showed that the main products constituents were TiAl, Ti3Al and TiAl3 in the case of Ti:Al atomic ratios of 1:1, 3:1, and 1:3, respectively; rapid preheating to temperatures close to ignition temperature resulted in minimization of the occurrence of undesired phases. The effects of various parameters such as the green compact density and titanium particle size on the ignition time, combustion wave velocity, and combustion temperature were studied.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.002

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicIntermetallics and Advanced Alloy PropertiesFrench-language works237,207