MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136744586 · doi:10.1080/2374068x.2021.1896863

Experimental studies and influence of process factor on zinc-nickel based coating on mild steel

2021· article· en· W3136744586 on OpenAlexaff
O.S.I. Fayomi, A A Sode, B. U. Anyanwu, A. A. Ayoola, Mojisola O. Nkiko, K. M. Oluwasegun, D.O. Alkhuele, Desmond Eseoghene Ighravwe

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Materials and Processing Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrodeposition and Electroless Coatings
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceIndentation hardnessCoatingMicrostructureScanning electron microscopeCorrosionMetallurgyReciprocating motionEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sulphate-rich electrolytic bath containing ZnSO4.7H2O in NiP solution was used to develop coating with Ni-P-Zn matrix under optimised process parameter. The major considerations are to examine the factor variance and the effect of varying time parameter between 10, 15, 20 and 25 min on the developed coating. Wear loss evolution was examined using reciprocating sliding wear tester with a force of 10 N and 20 N. The microhardness behaviour was examined using durascan microhardness tester with diamond indenter. The change in the structural build-up and the corrosion performance trend was observed using a scanning electron microscope enhanced with energy dispersive spectroscopy and potentiodynamic polarisation route. From the result we observe that time-dependant factors impact maximally on the crystal growth which rightly influences the coating hardness performance. For wear performance, the counter with external forces couldn’t penetrate wholly into the lattice of the developed coating due to the resilient formation of stable flakes. The microstructure formation shows stable dispersed crystal build-up and homogeneous growth. An excellent corrosion resistance characteristic was noticed with Ni-P-Zn-25 min matrix.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Materials and Processing TechnologiesSame topicElectrodeposition and Electroless CoatingsFrench-language works237,207