MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205344541 · doi:10.3390/ma15010377

Effects of Trace Elements on the Microstructural and Machinability Characteristics of Al–Si–Cu–Mg Castings

2022· article· en· W4205344541 on OpenAlexaff
Yasser Zedan, A. M. Samuel, H. W. Doty, Victor Songméné, F. H. Samuel

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAluminum Alloy Microstructure Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachinabilityMaterials scienceMetallurgyTRACE (psycholinguistics)Machining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was undertaken to emphasize the influence of Sn and Bi addition on the machinability of Sr-modified, grain-refined, and heat-treated Al–Si B319 and 396 alloys. Drilling and tapping tests were conducted to examine the cutting forces, tool life, tool wear, built-up edge evolution, and chip shape. Microstructures were examined using optical and electron microscopy. Drilling test results show that the B319.2 alloy with 0.15%Sn yields the longest drill life, i.e., twice that of the B319.2 alloy containing 0.5%Bi, and one-and-a-half times that of the B319.2 alloy containing 0.15%Sn + 0.5%Bi. The presence of 0.5%Bi in the B319.2 alloy causes a deterioration of drill life (cf., 1101 holes with 2100 holes drilled in the B319.2 alloy containing 0.15%Sn). The α-Fe phase in the 396 alloy produces the highest number of holes drilled compared with alloys containing sludge or β-Fe. The presence of sludge decreases the drill life by 50%. Built-up edge (BUE) measurements and optical photographs show little change in the BUE width for different numbers of holes except for the B319.2 alloy containing 0.5%Bi, which shows a slightly lower width (0.166 mm) compared with that containing 0.15% Sn (0.184 mm) or 0.15%Sn + 0.5%Bi (0.170 mm).

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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAluminum Alloy Microstructure PropertiesFrench-language works237,207