Delicate control of graphite flakes alignment in the copper matrices via powder selections and filling processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Due to the anisotropy properties of graphite flakes (Gf), the control of their orientation inside copper (Cu) matrice is strictly correlated with the final properties of such metal matrix composite (MMC). In this study, MMCs are fabricated by powder metallurgy process using three types of Cu powder particles (flake, dendritic, and spherical) as well as different powder filling methods. By using Cu flake powder with a relatively lower apparent density as compared to the two other Cu powder types (dendritic and spherical), high aligned Gf could be easily obtained, after uniaxial hot pressing, in a one-step powder filling approach. For the other two types of powders, a comparable orientation degree of Gf could be achieved only via several steps of delicate powder pressing. In-plane thermal conductivities of Cu/Gf composites were enhanced by improving the orientation degree of Gf, agreeing with effective medium approximation predictions (Maximum TC up to 540 W mK−1). A modeling, based on the apparent density of Cu powders, was discussed to show the effect of the alignment process on the final thermal property of such MMCs. This model supplies a basic guideline to obtain highly orientated Gf.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".