Thermal Stability of Cryomilled Al-Mg-Er Powders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the thermal stability of nanostructured Al-Mg alloy powders was investigated. Two alloy compositions, Al-5Mg-0.1Er and Al-5Mg-0.5Er (wt.%), were cryogenically milled for 30 h to produce nanostructured powders. The microstructure of the milled powders with increasing temperature was investigated by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) with one-hour annealing performed at selected temperatures followed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and electron microscopy analysis. Prolonged milling led to significant oxygen pick-up in the powders. The Al-5Mg-0.1Er powders experienced grain growth typical of cryomilled Al-Mg powders, while the Al-5Mg-0.5Er alloy showed improved thermal stability. An average grain size of ~20 nm was observed up to 400°C (~0.8<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math>) in the Al-5Mg-0.5Er powders, and abnormal growth at 550°C resulted in a maximum observed grain size of 234 nm. Thermal stability in the Al-Mg-Er powders is attributed to the combined effects of solute/impurity drag and second-phase pinning (nanoscale oxides, nitrides, and oxynitrides) that impede grain boundary motion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".