MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210365420 · doi:10.3390/met12020274

Laser Powder Bed Fusion of Unalloyed Tungsten: A Review of Process, Structure, and Properties Relationships

2022· review· en· W4210365420 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTungstenMaterials sciencePowder metallurgyMetallurgyBrittlenessFusionMelting pointMicrostructureComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tungsten (W) as a structural component has grown roots in many special applications owing to its radiation-shielding capabilities and its properties at elevated temperatures. The high ductile-brittle transition temperature (DBTT) and the very high melting point of tungsten however have limited its processability to certain technologies such as powder metallurgy. Laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) has been introduced in recent years as an alternative for manufacturing tungsten parts to overcome the design limitations posed by powder metallurgy technology. A review of the literature shows significant improvements in the quality of tungsten components produced by LPBF, implying a strong potential for manufacturing tungsten with this technology and a need for further research on this subject. This review paper presents the current state-of-the-art in LPBF of unalloyed tungsten, with a focus on the effect of process parameters on the developed structure/properties and identifies current knowledge gaps.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.206 · 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