MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997847434 · doi:10.1080/02670836.2019.1702775

Critical Assessment 36: Assessing differences between the use of cerium and scandium in aluminium alloying

2019· article· en· W2997847434 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScandiumCeriumMaterials scienceAluminiumMetallurgyAlloyEutectic system6063 aluminium alloyAluminium alloy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key factors affecting an application of two rare-earth metals cerium and scandium as alloying elements in aluminium are critically assessed. Having similar abundance in the Earth's crust, their cost and consumption differ by three to four orders of magnitude. The spectacular increment of alloy strength, achieved by scandium through the coherent, nano-scale, L1 2 -ordered Al 3 Sc precipitates is faced by the prohibitive cost barrier. For cerium, the low cost is accompanied by rather limited strengthening effects: negligible solid-state solubility of cerium in aluminium makes age hardening ineffective so the alloy strength depends on the Al 11 Ce 3 eutectic phase, formed during solidification. As a result, there are still no commercial aluminium alloys with large-scale applications that take advantage of cerium, scandium or their combination.

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 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 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 score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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