Effects of carbon nano-additives on characteristics of TiC ceramics prepared by field-assisted sintering
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five carbonaceous nano-additives (graphite, graphene, carbon black, carbon nanotubes, and diamond) had different impacts on the sinterability, microstructural evolution, and properties of titanium carbide. In this research, the sintering by spark plasma was employed to produce the monolithic TiC and carbon-doped ceramics under the sintering parameters of 1900 ºC, 10 min, 40 MPa. The carbon black additive had the best performance in densifying the TiC, thanks to its fine particle size, as well as its high chemical reactivity with TiO2 surface oxide. By contrast, the incorporation of nano-diamonds resulted in a considerable decline in the relative density of TiC owing to the graphitization phenomenon, together with the gas production at high temperatures. Although carbon precipitation from the TiC matrix occurred in all samples, some of the added carbonaceous phases promoted this phenomenon, while the others hindered it to some extent. Amongst the introduced additives, carbon black had the most contribution to grain refining, so that a roughly halved average grain size was attained in comparison with the undoped specimen. The highest values of hardness (3233 HV0.1 kg), thermal conductivity (25.1 W/mK), and flexural strength (658 MPa) secured for the ceramic incorporated by 5 wt% nano carbon black.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it