Effect of Eutectic Behavior on Yield Stress of Mg-La-Zr Alloys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hardness and tensile properties of Mg-La-Zr alloys with various lanthanum contents were investigated, and the microstructures of the alloys were examined. The microstructure was composed of fine globular primary α-Mg grains and eutectic areas. The values of yield stress and modulus of the eutectic were, respectively, about 3 times and 1.7 times higher than those of the primary α-Mg. The increase in the yield stress of the alloys with less than 1.2%La is due to a rapid increase in coverage of the α-Mg grain boundary by the eutectic. As the increment in the grain boundary coverage decreases with lanthanum content, the composite strengthening (composite materials effect) starts to play a more significant role in increasing yield stress. As the grain boundary coverage reaches a plateau at about 2%La, further increase in the yield stress is mainly due to the composite strengthening, the effect of which is dependent on the volume fraction of eutectic. During tensile-testing at 150℃, the alloys with higher lanthanum content exhibited dual yield points, the first from yielding of the primary α-Mg, followed by the higher-yield point associated with the eutectic. This suggests that composite strengthening is in effect.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".