MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385258458 · doi:10.1021/acsomega.2c07278

Modeling of the Sintered Density in Cu-Al Alloy Using Machine Learning Approaches

2023· article· en· W4385258458 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Omega · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPowder Metallurgy Techniques and Materials
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlloyMaterials scienceMetallurgyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide In powder metallurgy materials, sintered density in Cu-Al alloy plays a critical role in detecting mechanical properties. Experimental measurement of this property is costly and time-consuming. In this study, adaptive boosting decision tree, support vector regression, k -nearest neighbors, extreme gradient boosting, and four multilayer perceptron (MLP) models tuned by resilient backpropagation, Levenberg–Marquardt (LM), scaled conjugate gradient, and Bayesian regularization were employed for predicting powder densification through sintering. Yield strength, Young’s modulus, volume variation caused by the phase transformation, hardness, liquid volume, liquidus temperature, the solubility ratio among the liquid phase and the solid phase, sintered temperature, solidus temperature, sintered atmosphere, holding time, compaction pressure, particle size, and specific shape factor were regarded as the input parameters of the suggested models. The cross plot, error distribution curve, and cumulative frequency diagram as graphical tools and average percent relative error (APRE), average absolute percent relative error (AAPRE), root mean square error (RMSE), standard deviation (SD), and coefficient of correlation ( R ) as the statistical evaluations were utilized to estimate the models’ accuracy. All of the developed models were compared with preexisting approaches, and the results exhibited that the developed models in the present work are more precise and valid than the existing ones. The designed MLP-LM model was found to be the most precise approach with AAPRE = 1.292%, APRE = −0.032%, SD = 0.020, RMSE = 0.016, and R = 0.989. Lately, outlier detection was applied performing the leverage technique to detect the suspected data points. The outlier detection discovered that few points are located out of the applicability domain of the proposed MLP-LM model.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.177 · 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