MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391953318 · doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.108433

TaC-WC synthesis by a new approach of mechanical milling and low-temperature spark plasma sintering

2024· article· en· W4391953318 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Vazquez-Pelayo, Ignacio Guadalupe Becerril‐Juarez, L.K. Mireles, H. Flores-Zúñiga, M. Ávalos‐Borja

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Today Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsSpark plasma sinteringMaterials scienceSinteringBall millVickers hardness testGraphiteMetallurgyStoichiometryIndentation hardnessComposite materialMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herein, TaC was synthesized by high-energy ball milling (60 and 120 min), employing a 1:1 stoichiometric ratio of tantalum and graphite. WC derived from milling material served as a sintering aid. This process yielded average particle sizes of 1.4±0.9 µm at 60 min and 0.9±0.6 µm at 120 min. TaC-WC powders were consolidated via spark plasma sintering at 1331 °C under 50 MPa, ensuing in materials with relative densities of ∼97% and ∼95% for 60-minute and 120-minute samples, respectively. Vickers hardness showed impressive results; the 60-minute sample presented a hardness of 17.7±0.8 GPa at 9.8 N and 27.9±0.6 GPa at 0.49 N, while the 120-minute sample presented a hardness of 18.9±0.5 GPa at 9.8 N and 23.1±0.9 GPa at 0.49 N. These values are comparable to materials manufactured for longer mechanical treatment and higher sintering temperatures (>1700 °C). The combination of these two techniques enabled the development of dense materials with high hardness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Today CommunicationsSame topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207