Coupled Experimental Study and Thermodynamic Modeling of the Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>–Ti<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub>–TiO<sub>2</sub> System
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A complete critical evaluation and re-optimization of phase diagrams and thermodynamic properties of the Al2O3–Ti2O3–TiO2 system at 1 atm pressure has been performed. Equilibration and quenching experiment in the Al2O3–TiO2 system in air was also performed to constrain the solubility limit of Al2O3 in TiO2 rutile solution at high temperatures. The molten oxide phase was described by the Modified Quasichemical Model considering the short-range ordering in molten oxide. While Al2TiO5 and Ti3O5 were treated as separate stoichiometric phases in the previous optimization, they were described in this study, using the Compound Energy Formalism, as part of pseudobrookite solid solution with a miscibility gap based on new experimental data. Corundum and rutile solutions were also described based on their crystal structures. New high temperature phase, Al6Ti2O13, was also considered for the first time. A set of optimized model parameters of all phases was obtained, which reproduces all available and reliable literature data within experimental error limits from 25°C to above the liquidus temperatures under oxygen partial pressures from metallic saturation to 1 atm. The newly optimized database was applied to calculate the inclusion diagram and reoxidation of Al-killed and Ti bearing steels.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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 it