MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300988488 · doi:10.31399/asm.cp.itsc2015p0420

Fretting Behavior of Cold-Sprayed Cu and Cu-MoS2 Coatings

2015· article· en· W4300988488 on OpenAlexaff
Yinyin Zhang, Richard R. Chromik, Sylvie Descartes, Édouard Régis, Phuong Vo

Bibliographic record

VenueThermal spray · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceCoatingScanning electron microscopeFrettingIndentation hardnessComposite materialComposite numberMetallurgyLubricationMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Cu and Cu-MoS2 coatings were fabricated by cold gas dynamic spray and the fretting wear performance of the two coatings was compared. A mixture (95 wt.% Cu + 5 wt.% MoS2) was used as feedstock for the composite coating. Coatings were sprayed with identical gas flow conditions on the substrates preheated to approximately 170°C. The cross section of the coatings was analyzed by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and MoS2 concentration was measured, as well as coating microhardness. Fretting tests were carried out under gross slip conditions in ambient environment. SEM observation on wear scars and counterspheres revealed the development of third bodies, by which the sliding was accommodated. For the Cu-MoS2 coating, solid lubrication effects in the form of friction drops occurred in early cycles (< 5k), but eventually (> 5k) the coating's friction behavior was similar to the pure Cu coating. Third body morphology and wear of the two coatings were distinctly different, which could largely be attributed to the hardness reduction of the Cu-MoS2 composite due to poorly bonded interfaces induced by the effect of MoS2 during particle impact and coating formation.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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