MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152998948 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2020-0166

Wear evaluation and microstructure analysis of cryogenically treated AISI 440C bearing steel

2021· article· en· W3152998948 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Idayan, C. Elanchezhian, B. Vijaya Ramnath, K. Palanikumar

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetal Alloys Wear and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryogenic treatmentMicrostructureMaterials scienceMetallurgyBearing (navigation)AusteniteCarbideScanning electron microscopeWear resistanceDelamination (geology)Composite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, two types of cryogenic treatment [deep cryogenic treatment (−196 °C) and shallow cryogenic treatment (−80 °C)] were used to increase wear resistance in AISI 440C bearing steel. Out focus was to find a way to increase wear resistance via deep microstructural analyses, and also to correlate the microstructure with the wear characteristics of specimens subjected to deep cryogenic treatment, conventional heat treatment, or shallow cryogenic treatment. Microstructural examinations of the specimens were performed using scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive analysis of X-rays, and X-ray diffraction to study the wear characteristics of AISI 440C bearing steel. The results show that the specimens subjected to deep cryogenic treatment have greater wear resistance than the specimens subjected to shallow cryogenic or conventional heat treatment. The wear mechanisms included the formation and delamination of white layers. The microstructure of the steel was altered by the heat treatment process: the precipitation characteristics of the secondary carbides were modified and the levels of retained austenite were reduced, which correlated with the wear characteristics, and were identified as the potential mechanisms behind the increased wear resistance of the bearing steels due to the deep cryogenic treatment.

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMetal Alloys Wear and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207