MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387369828 · doi:10.1002/cphc.202300419

Shock‐Induced Microstructural Evolution, Phase Transformation, Sintering of Al‐Ni Dissimilar Nanoparticles: A Molecular Dynamics Study

2023· article· en· W4387369828 on OpenAlexaff
Jun Jiang, Weifu Sun, Ning Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueChemPhysChem · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergetic Materials and Combustion
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMaterials scienceSinteringSlip (aerodynamics)Molecular dynamicsNanoparticleMicrostructureAtomic diffusionComposite materialDiffusionChemical physicsNanotechnologyThermodynamicsCrystallographyChemistryComputational chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molecular dynamic simulations have been performed to explore contact behavior, microstructure evolution and sintering mechanism of Al-Ni dissimilar nanoparticles under high-velocity impact. We confirmed that the simulated contact stress, contact radius, and contact force under low-velocity impact are in good agreement with the predicted results of the Hertz model. However, with increasing the impact velocity, the simulated results gradually deviate from the predicted results of the Hertz model due to the elastic-plastic transition and atomic discrete structure. The normalized contact radius versus strain exhibits a weak dependence on nanosphere diameter. Below a critical velocity, there are very few HCP atoms in the nanospheres after thermal equilibrium. There are two different sintering mechanisms: under low-velocity impact, the sintering process relies mainly on the dislocation slip of Al nanospheres, while the dislocation slip of Ni nanospheres and the atomic diffusion of Al nanospheres predominate under high-velocity impact.

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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemPhysChemSame topicEnergetic Materials and CombustionFrench-language works237,207