MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392004003 · doi:10.3390/ma17050993

Process Maps for Predicting Austenite Fraction (vol.%) in Medium-Mn Third-Generation Advanced High-Strength Steels

2024· article· en· W4392004003 on OpenAlexafffund
Azin Mehrabi, Hatem S. Zurob, Joseph R. McDermid

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Zinc AssociationArcelorMittal
KeywordsAusteniteMaterials scienceAnnealing (glass)MetallurgyMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Process maps were developed using a combination of microstructural analysis and DICTRA-based modeling to predict the austenite vol.% as a function of the intercritical annealing parameters and starting microstructure. The maps revealed a strong dependence of the calculated austenite fraction (vol.%) on the Mn content (4-12 wt.%) and intercritical annealing temperatures (600 °C to 740 °C). The calculations were carried out for constant carbon, Al, and Si contents of 0.2 wt.%, 1.5 wt.%, and 1.0 wt.%, respectively. A modified empirical equation proposed by Koistinen and Marburger was employed to calculate the room-temperature retained austenite vol.% as a function of the intercritical annealing temperature, including the effect of the austenite composition. The process maps offer valuable insights for designing intercritical treatments of medium-Mn steels, aiding in the optimization of steel properties for automotive applications.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207