MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389241639 · doi:10.53063/synsint.2023.34177

Is synthesizing a Cu35Co35Ni20Ti5Al5 high-entropy alloy beyond the rules of solid-solution formation?

2023· article· en· W4389241639 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthesis and Sintering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Entropy Alloys Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSemnan University
KeywordsAlloyCrystalliteNanocrystalline materialMaterials scienceSolid solutionHigh entropy alloysMetallurgyCopperAluminiumNickelChemical engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research, an attempt was made to produce multi-component nanocrystalline Cu­35Co35Ni20Ti5Al5 alloy by mechanical alloying. To produce this high-entropy alloy, the primary powders were milled for 40 h and characterized by XRD, SEM, EDS, and DSC analyses. The milling process has reduced the size of the crystallites to the nanometer scale and a nanostructured multicomponent powder with a crystallite size of 29 nm was obtained. According to the XRD patterns and EDS maps of the milled powder for the longest time, aluminum and copper were homogeneously distributed, cobalt had a less homogeneous distribution than these two elements, but nickel and titanium remained in concentrated spots. Finally, thermodynamic calculations were done to clarify the reason for the impossibility of forming a solid solution for the synthesis of the Cu­35Co35Ni20Ti5Al5 high-entropy alloy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.216 · 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