MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180984999 · doi:10.18280/acsm.450308

Characterization and Microstructural Evolution of WC-Co Cemented Carbides

2021· article· en· W3180984999 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hassiba Rabouhi, Youcef Khelfaoui, Abdelkrim Khireddine

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceSinteringHot isostatic pressingPorosityCarbideGraphiteMetallurgyCobaltIndentation hardnessPhase (matter)Composite materialMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two types of cemented carbides have been elaborated from three mixtures of WC and Co powders containing 3, 5 and 6% of cobalt mass. Three samples of these mixtures have been obtained by liquid phase sintering and three others of the same composition have been sintered then densified by hot isostatic pressing (HIP). Observations by scanning electronic microscope have allowed to note that the samples elaborated by sintering followed by an HIP densification have a more homogeneous structure than that observed in the sintered samples. Under the compression, the WC grains flattens and interlock more easily from one another which gives a uniform surface appearance. Energy dispersion analysis shows that these samples contain a very small voluminal fraction of graphite and residual porosities, these are more pronounced in sintered samples, especially in the case of alloys with a low Co content (3 and 5%). X rays diffraction analysis allowed to show clearly the existence of cobalt type carbide in the sintered samples. Measurement of the closed porosity allows to observe that the sintering process followed by densification by HIP leads to the elaboration of alloys with a low rate of closed porosity. Microhardness of these samples have improved hardnesses.

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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207