MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900668959 · doi:10.1177/1464420718809133

Ultrasonic spot welding of dissimilar 2024Al alloy and SiCp/2009Al composite

2018· article· en· W2900668959 on OpenAlexafffund
V.K. Patel, SD Bhole, DL Chen, DR Ni, BL Xiao, Z.Y. Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part L Journal of Materials Design and Applications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpot weldingWeldingMaterials scienceComposite materialComposite numberUltimate tensile strengthIndentation hardnessUltrasonic sensorAlloyUltrasonic weldingMetallurgyRubbingShear (geology)Lap jointMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dissimilar welding of 2024Al alloy to SiC/2009Al composite was conducted via solid-state ultrasonic spot welding technique. Defect-free sound spot welds were successfully achieved. SiCp particles were observed to migrate from the composite side to 2024Al side along with the interfacial interlocking during the intense high-frequency rubbing, which increased with increasing welding energy. The microhardness across the ultrasonic spot welded similar and dissimilar joints remained nearly constant. The tensile lap shear failure load increased with increasing welding energy, and satisfied the requirements of AWS standard D17.2 for spot welding. In addition to room temperature tensile lap shear tests, all the similar and dissimilar joints were subjected to tensile tests at varying temperatures and their respective results were discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part L Journal of Materials Design and ApplicationsSame topicAdvanced Welding Techniques AnalysisFrench-language works237,207