Role of Ti3AlC2 MAX phase on characteristics of in-situ synthesized TiAl intermetallics. Part III: microstructure
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
In this paper, the 3rd part of a series of publications on the sinterability and characteristics of TiAl–Ti3AlC2 composites, the microstructure development during the synthesis and sintering processes was studied by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Chemical evaluation of various phases in the developed microstructures was performed using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) in different ways such as point, line scan and two-dimensional elemental map analyses. For this purpose, five samples were fabricated with different percentages of Ti3AlC2 MAX phase additive (10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 wt%). Ball-milling and spark plasma sintering (SPS: 900 °C/7 min/40 MPa) of as-purchased Al and Ti powders with already-synthesized Ti3AlC2 additive were selected as composite making methodology. SEM/EDS analyses verified the in-situ manufacturing of TiAl/Ti3Al intermetallics as the matrix during the SPS process and the presence of Ti3AlC2 as the ex-situ added secondary phase. Moreover, the in-situ synthesis of Ti2AlC, another member of MAX phases in Ti-Al-C system, was also detected in titanium aluminide grain boundaries and attributed to a chemical reaction between TiC (an impurity in the initial Ti3AlC2 additive) and TiAl components.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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