MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087161084 · doi:10.3390/cryst10090836

Effect of Nitrogen Content on the Formation of Inclusions in Fe-5Mn-3Al Steels

2020· article· en· W3087161084 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelia Alba, Muhammad Nabeel, Neslihan Dogan

Bibliographic record

VenueCrystals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArcelorMittal
KeywordsMaterials scienceNitrogenMetallurgyInclusion (mineral)Content (measure theory)Analytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of N content on the characteristics and formation of inclusions in the Fe-5Mn-3Al steels was investigated in this study. Two synthetic steel melts were produced by two different methods—N2 gas purging and injecting—to introduce nitrogen into the melt. The N content of steel melt varied from 2 to 54 ppm. An increase in the N content to 47 ppm (for 533N-P) and 58 ppm (for 533N-I) increased the total amount of inclusions from 13 to 64 mm−2 and from 21 to 101 mm−2, respectively. The observed inclusions were Al2O3(pure), Al2O3-MnS, AlN(pure), AlN-MnS, AlON, AlON-MnS, and MnS. When the N content was less than 10 ppm, AlN-MnS inclusions were the primary type of inclusions and they formed as solidification products. With an increase in the N content, AlN(pure) inclusions became the dominant type of inclusions as AlN was stable in the liquid steel. These findings were confirmed by thermodynamic calculations. The influence of cooling rate on the types of inclusions was studied and a higher number of AlN-MnS inclusions were observed in samples with slow cooling rate.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrystalsSame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207