A comparative study of nanovoid growth in FCC metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous HotQC studies of Cu nanovoids undergoing volumetric expansion conducted by the authors have uncovered a quasistatic-to-dynamic transition at a critical strain rate of the order of . At low strain rates nanovoid expansion takes place under essentially isothermal conditions, whereas at high strain rates it happens under essential adiabatic conditions. In this paper, we present a comparative study concerned with two different scenarios, each representing a variation on the reference case presented in [1]: (i) aluminium (Al) nanovoids undergoing volumetric expansion; and (ii) copper (Cu) nanovoids undergoing uniaxial deformation. Scenario (i) addresses material specificity by replacing Cu by Al in the reference case, whereas scenario (ii) addresses the effect of triaxiality by replacing volumetric expansion by uniaxial expansion in the reference case. We find a distinct quasistatic-to-dynamic transition in both scenarios, which suggests that the transition is indeed universal, i.e. material and strain-triaxiality independent. By contrast, the fine structure of the dislocation mechanisms that mediate void growth are strongly material and loading specific.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".