MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766644991 · doi:10.12943/cnr.2017.00010

ADOPTING TRANSMISSION KIKUCHI DIFFRACTION TO CHARACTERIZE GRAIN STRUCTURE AND TEXTURE OF ZR-2.5NB CANDU PRESSURE TUBES

2017· article· en· W2766644991 on OpenAlexaffvenue
C. D. Judge, Wenjing Li, C. Mayhew, A.G. Buyers, Grant A. Bickel

Bibliographic record

VenueCNL Nuclear Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNuclear Materials and Properties
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTexture (cosmology)Materials scienceDiffractionCrystallographyComposite materialChemistryOpticsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microstructure and texture of Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes is greatly influenced by the manufacturing route. Although the general nature of the microstructure remains consistent between different manufacturing routes, subtle differences in the relative size and aspect ratios of the elongated α-Zr grains differ with pressure tubes of different pedigree. These differences have been shown to correlate well with in-reactor deformation; however, the ability to consistently and efficiently characterize the microstructures hinders an understanding of the fundamental degradation mechanisms. This paper outlines a new approach to characterize Zr-2.5Nb pressure tubes using thin foils characterized with both diffraction contrast in a conventional transmission electron microscope (TEM) and transmission Kikuchi diffraction (TKD) in a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The combined approaches enable a characterization of the same region of material with both techniques and capitalize on the advantages of each approach. In addition to obtaining general microscopy from SEM-TKD, the localized texture is obtained and compared to texture from X-ray diffraction, which provides higher confidence that the grains examined in the TEM foils are representative of the bulk material.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCNL Nuclear ReviewSame topicNuclear Materials and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207