MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735093611 · doi:10.1017/s1431927600030725

Grain Boundary Segregation in NI-Base Alloys: an Integrated Approach using FIB, TEM and SIMS

2001· article· en· W2735093611 on OpenAlexaff
G. McMahon, M. W. Phaneuf

Bibliographic record

VenueMicroscopy and Microanalysis · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIon-surface interactions and analysis
Canadian institutionsFibics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceGrain boundaryIntergranular corrosionBoronMetallurgyElectron microprobeMicrostructureIntergranular fractureAlloyBrittlenessMicroprobeGrain boundary strengtheningMineralogyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Segregation of elements to the grain boundaries in Ni-base alloys can have a large effect on the mechanical and corrosion properties of these materials. The extent of segregation, whether it is equilibrium or non-equilibrium segregation, is dependent upon the thermo-mechanical treatments applied to the alloy. in order to determine if a particular thermo-mechanical process delivers the desired microstructure, a complete microstructural analysis including an examination of grain boundary segregation must be performed. In the past, TEM has been used to identify the various phases and precipitates in these materials through the use of bright- and dark-field imaging, electron diffraction, and EDS. However, one of the elements that can play a large role in determining the properties of these alloys is boron. in this group of alloys, boron is generally present in bulk analyses in only a few tens of ppm, and as a result it is difficult to detect using the aforementioned techniques. More commonly, boron segregation to the grain boundaries is usually studied by means of Auger analysis, whereby the sample is charged with hydrogen in order to promote brittle intergranular fracture in-situ in the Auger microprobe. Boron can then be detected at the surface of the clean grain boundary fracture surfaces.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicroscopy and MicroanalysisSame topicIon-surface interactions and analysisFrench-language works237,207