A Review on Porosity Formation in Aluminum-Based Alloys
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this review is to analyze the equations proposed for expressing the effect of various parameters on porosity formation in aluminum-based alloys. These parameters include alloying elements, solidification rate, grain refining, modification, hydrogen content, as well as the applied pressure on porosity formation in such alloys. They are used to establish as precisely as possible a statistical model to describe the resulting porosity characteristics such as the percentage porosity and pore characteristics, as controlled by the chemical composition of the alloy, modification, grain refining, and the casting conditions. The measured parameters of percentage porosity, maximum pore area, average pore area, maximum pore length, and average pore length, which were obtained from statistical analysis, are discussed, and they are supported using optical micrographs, electron microscopic images of fractured tensile bars, as well as radiography. In addition, an analysis of the statistical data is presented. It should be noted that all alloys described were well degassed and filtered prior to casting.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it