Tetragonal reconstruction and monoclinic variants rearrangement during heat treatment in zirconia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An in situ monoclinic variants selection and rearrangement study on Y 2 O 3 –ZrO 2 coatings was conducted using electron backscattered diffraction. The sequence growth of variants with the correspondence of (100) m ∼// (010) t , [010] m ∼// [001] t , and [001] m ∼// [100] t (CAB‐OR2) was found initially and converted to the 90°‐rotated sequence growth with (100) m ∼// (100) t , [001] m ∼// [001] t , and [010] m ∼// [010] t (ABC‐OR2) after heat treatment. In another coating, most of the variants first exhibited interleaving growth and changed to typically fourfold growth. This in situ evolution of both variants orientation relationship and arrangement revealed the effects of stress and stress relief on the martensitic transformation. Moreover, the variants selection might be diversified during the cyclic transformation, and the classical phenomenological theory could mainly be proved by the transformation triggered by temperature, instead of external stress. Furthermore, the variants orientation relationship was exactly confirmed by the tetragonal grain reconstructions. In particular, the orientation variation of reconstructed tetragonal grains was also found and could mainly be explained by the behavior of stress relief and dynamic recrystallization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".