MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297619644

Process maps for plasma spray: Part 1: Plasma-particle interactions

2000· paratext· en· W4297619644 on OpenAlexfundno aff
DELWYN L GILMORE

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2000
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto ScarboroughSandia National LaboratoriesMaterials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlasmaProcess (computing)Dense plasma focusMaterials scienceSolution precursor plasma sprayParticle (ecology)Computer scienceThermal sprayingPhysicsNanotechnologyNuclear physicsGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first paper of a two part series based on an integrated study carried out at Sandia National Laboratories and the State University of New York at Stony Brook. The aim of the study is to develop a more fundamental understanding of plasma-particle interactions, droplet-substrate interactions, deposit formation dynamics and microstructural development as well as final deposit properties. The purpose is to create models that can be used to link processing to performance. Process maps have been developed for air plasma spray of molybdenum. Experimental work was done to investigate the importance of such spray parameters as gun current, auxiliary gas flow, and powder carrier gas flow. In-flight particle diameters, temperatures, and velocities were measured in various areas of the spray plume. Samples were produced for analysis of microstructures and properties. An empirical model was developed, relating the input parameters to the in-flight particle characteristics. Multi-dimensional numerical simulations of the plasma gas flow field and in-flight particles under different operating conditions were also performed. In addition to the parameters which were experimentally investigated, the effect of particle injection velocity was also considered. The simulation results were found to be in good general agreement with the 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.185
Teacher spread0.174 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)Same topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207