MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293587254 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2005p1244

On the Influence of the Substrate Hardness on Cold-Sprayed Nickel Coating

2005· article· en· W4293587254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
F. Raletz, G. Ezo’o, P. Brenot, M. Vardelle

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoatingSubstrate (aquarium)Gas dynamic cold sprayPorosityNickelIndentation hardnessMetallurgyDeposition (geology)HardnessComposite materialParticle (ecology)Microstructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cold spray process is an emerging technique that produces high density coatings. Particles are carried by a supersonic gas stream through a De Laval nozzle and, finally, impact on a substrate with high kinetic energy. Low gas temperatures make it possible to maintain sprayed material in solid state during the whole process. Beyond a given velocity, called “particle critical velocity”, particles can bind to the surface and create a coating. This velocity is clearly dependent on both sprayed material and substrate properties. This study deals with the investigation of the influence of the substrate hardness on nickel coating properties. Substrates with different hardness but same chemical composition were used. Samples are then coated with pure nickel or NiCrAlY under the same operating conditions. The measurements of some coating properties and process parameters (deposition efficiency (D.E.), level of porosity, micro hardness) allow the analysis of the effect of substrate hardness on sprayability. It was found that only D.E. is widely influenced by hardness of the substrate. It decreases drastically (especially for NiCrAlY) since hardness of the substrate is higher than hardness of the particle. Porosity level and coating hardness remain constant whatever substrate hardness is.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.218
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
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

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThermal spraySame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207