MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224302855 · doi:10.1007/s40145-022-0574-6

Low-temperature densification of high-entropy (Ti,Zr,Nb,Ta,Mo)C—Co composites with high hardness and high toughness

2022· article· en· W4224302855 on OpenAlexaff
Si‐Chun Luo, Wei‐Ming Guo, Kevin P. Plucknett, Hua‐Tay Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Ceramics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceCeramicSinteringCarbideToughnessComposite materialFracture toughnessMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In order to prepare high toughness (Ti,Zr,Nb,Ta,Mo)C ceramics at low temperatures while maintaining high hardness, a liquid-phase sintering process combined with Co-based liquid-phase extrusion strategy was adopted in this study. The densification temperature can be lowered to 1350 °C, which is much lower than the solid-state sintering temperature (∼2000 °C) generally employed for high-entropy carbide ceramics. When sintered at 1550 °C and 30 MPa applied pressure, part of the Co-based liquid-phase was squeezed out of the graphite mold, such that only ∼3.21 vol% of Co remained in the high-entropy ceramic. Compared to the Co-free solid-state sintered (Ti,Zr,Nb,Ta,Mo)C ceramics, prepared at 2000 °C and 35 MPa, the hardness was slightly decreased from 25.06±0.32 to 24.11±0.75 GPa, but the toughness was increased from 2.25±0.22 to 4.07±0.13 MPa·m1/2. This work provides a new strategy for low-temperature densification of high-entropy carbides with both high hardness and high toughness.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations95
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced CeramicsSame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207