MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045346286 · doi:10.1080/03019233.2020.1791549

Effect of aluminium content on the formation of inclusions in Fe–5Mn– <i>x</i> Al steels

2020· article· en· W3045346286 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelia Alba, Muhammad Nabeel, Neslihan Dogan

Bibliographic record

VenueIronmaking & Steelmaking Processes Products and Applications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceAluminiumMetallurgyPhase (matter)Inclusion (mineral)Non-metallic inclusionsMineralogyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of Al content on the characteristics and formation of inclusions in the light-weight Fe–5Mn–xAl steels was investigated in this study. Four synthetic steels with different Al content were produced in the laboratory. The types of observed inclusions were Al2O3 (pure), Al2O3–MnS, AlN(pure), AlN–MnS, AlON–MnS, AlON and MnS. Increasing Al content from 0.5% to 6% increased the total amount of inclusions by 2.5 times. As the Al content increased from 0.5% to 3%, the number of AlN–MnS inclusions increased significantly. Moreover, the AlN(pure) inclusions appeared in 6% Al containing steel. Thermodynamic calculations confirmed that AlN inclusions formed during cooling of the steel. It is also observed that AlN can precipitate on Al2O3 to form AlN + Al2O3 inclusions, classified as multi-phase AlON inclusions in this study. Furthermore, MnS inclusions could co-precipitate with AlN and Al2O3 inclusions, but it preferred to co-precipitate with AlN inclusions.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations32
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIronmaking & Steelmaking Processes Products and ApplicationsSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207