On the Effect of Electric Field During Spark Plasma Sintering — A “faraday Cage” Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter presents an experimental study in which an innovative method to investigate the effect of the electric field on a material during spark plasma sintering (SPS) processing was carried out. Graphite tooling consisting of copper and alumina layers enabled sintering of pure zinc oxide such that the effect of the electric field on the zinc oxide was manipulated. Raw zinc oxide powder obtained from Fisher Scientific was used for all experiments. The particle size distribution analysis for the raw powder was carried out using a laser diffractometer. The bulk density of the as-sintered pellet was determined via the Archimedes principle in distilled water. The densities and porosities of the two pellets were within the standard deviation, and thus the electric field had a minimal impact on the powder densification under the investigated SPS operating conditions. The chemical analysis results showed that there was a reduction in the oxygen composition after sintering; however, there was minimal difference in the composition of pellets produced with and without a Faraday cage. Sintering of pellets carried out with and without a Faraday cage revealed that the density remained nearly constant for both sintering conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".