MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111954232 · doi:10.3390/jmmp4040119

Laser Powder Bed Fusion with Intentionally-Seeded Porosity for Prototyping of Powder Metallurgy Parts

2020· article· en· W3111954232 on OpenAlexafffund
Morgan Letenneur, Pete Imbrogno, Amin Molavi-Kakhki, Vladimir Braïlovski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsRio Tinto (Canada)École de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMicrostructureMaterials sciencePorosityPowder metallurgyFusionScanning electron microscopeMetallurgyUltimate tensile strengthRapid prototypingNear net shapeComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing technology was used to produce functional prototypes of powder metallurgy (PM) components from high carbon content, iron-based water-atomized powders. The melt pool modeling and design of experiment approaches were combined in order to determine the LPBF operation window allowing to print parts with components similar to the PM in terms of density, microstructure and mechanical properties. The size, morphology and distribution of processing-induced pores were evaluated using computed tomography, while a microstructure analysis was carried out using X-ray diffraction and scanning electron microscopy, and the mechanical properties were evaluated using tensile and unnotched Charpy testing. It was demonstrated that LPBF technology could effectively be used for the just-in-time manufacture of high-fidelity functional prototypes of PM parts from iron-based powders.

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 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.218
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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207