MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294702303 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2007p0604

Characterization and Evaluation of Nanostructured Bond Coats from Noncryogenically Milled Feedstock

2007· article· en· W4294702303 on OpenAlexaff
G.E. Kim, T. Addona, P. Richer, B. Jodoin, A. Almathami, Mathieu Brochu

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceEquiaxed crystalsThermal sprayingRaw materialCharacterization (materials science)MetallurgyThermal barrier coatingTemperature cyclingThermalComposite materialMicrostructureCoatingNanotechnologyCeramic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal barrier coatings (TBCs) with nanostructured bond coats have shown significant thermal cycling enhancements over their conventional microstructured counterparts; however, the high cost inherent to the cryomilling processing of the MCrAlY powder limits commercial application. Hence, this study characterizes and evaluates nanostructured bond coats derived from non-cryogenically milled MCrAlY powder with emphasis placed on reduced processing cost and scale-up capability. After extensive development of both a high-energy planetary mill and its operating parameters, fine-grained equiaxed NiCrAlY powder has been produced. XRD and SEM characterization of the milled powder will be presented. Microstructural analyses of the coatings sprayed via the HVOF and cold spray processes will also be carried out, in addition to some preliminary static oxidation test results of the conventional and milled NiCrAlY.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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