MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293543390 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2005p0810

Measuring Thermal Contact Resistance Between Molten Aluminum Droplets and a Steel Plate

2005· article· en· W4293543390 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Heichal, M. Xue, S. Chandra, J. Mostaghimi

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsCanadian Dairy Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceThermal contact conductanceAluminiumSubstrate (aquarium)Surface roughnessThermocoupleSurface finishContact angleAlloyComposite materialContact areaContact resistanceThermal resistanceThermalMetallurgyThermodynamicsLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The impact and solidification of 4 mm molten aluminum alloy 380 droplets on a tool steel substrate was studied both analytically and experimentally. Temperature histories at different radial location on the substrate surface under impacting droplets were recorded using an array of thin film thermocouples with response times less than 1 µs. Photographs were taken of droplet impact onto the substrate. Initial substrate temperature was varied from room temperature to 300°C and average surface roughness from 0.5 to 5.0 µm. Estimates of thermal contact resistance were made by matching measured substrate temperatures with an analytical solution for surface temperature variation. A model of the true area of contact between molten metal and a rough surface was developed in order to predict how contact resistance changes with surface roughness and contact pressure. Impact of molten aluminum alloy droplets was simulated using a three-dimensional numerical. Using values of thermal contact resistance predicted by the model gave good agreement between computed and observed droplet shapes during impact.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207