MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294791128 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2007p0207

Predicting Splat Morphology in a Thermal Spray Process

2007· article· en· W4294791128 on OpenAlexaff
Raj Dhiman, S. Chandra

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimensionless quantityMaterials scienceLayer (electronics)Substrate (aquarium)ThermalMorphology (biology)Thermal sprayingComposite materialSolid surfaceProcess (computing)Thin layerMechanicsMetallurgyThermodynamicsGeologyChemistryCoatingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Splats formed during a thermal spray process may be either highly fragmented or intact and disk-like. To predict this change in splat morphology, a dimensionless solidification parameter (Θ), which takes into account factors such as the substrate temperature, splat and substrate thermophysical properties, and thermal contact resistance between the two, has been defined. Θ is the ratio of the thickness of the solid layer formed in the splat while it is spreading, to the splat thickness. The value of Θ can be calculated from simple analytical models of splat solidification and spreading. If the solid layer growth is very slow (Θ << 1), the droplet spreads out to a large extent. Once it reaches maximum spread it becomes so thin that it ruptures, producing fragmented splats. If, however, the solid layer thickness is significant (Θ ~ 0.1 – 0.4), the droplet is restricted from spreading too far and does not become thin enough to rupture. Under such circumstances, disk-type splats are expected. When the solid layer growth is rapid (Θ~1), spreading of the droplet is significantly obstructed by the solid layer, producing splats with fingers around their periphery. Predictions from the model are compared with experimental data.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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