MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396937912 · doi:10.3390/ma17102341

Computationally Efficient Algorithm for Modeling Grain Growth Using Hillert’s Mean-Field Approach

2024· article· en· W4396937912 on OpenAlexafffund
Shabnam Fadaei Chatroudi, Robert Cicoria, Hatem S. Zurob

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsUpsamplingGrain growthMicrostructureUndersamplingGrain sizeAlgorithmComputer scienceMaterials scienceProcess (computing)Biological systemField (mathematics)Statistical physicsMathematicsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the interconnected effects of manufacturing processes on microstructure evolution during hot-rolling, a through process model is required. A novel numerical implementation of the mean-field approach was introduced to efficiently describe the grain growth of larger systems and extended durations. In this approach, each grain is embedded within an average medium and interacts with the average medium, thus avoiding the complexities of individual grain interactions. The proposed upsampling approach dynamically adjusts the simulation grain ensemble, ensuring efficiency and accuracy regardless of the initial number of grains present. This adaptation prevents undersampling artifacts during grain growth. The accuracy of the model is verified against analytical solutions and experimental data, demonstrating high agreement. Moreover, the effects of different initial conditions are successfully investigated, demonstrating the model's versatility. Due to its simplicity and efficiency, the model can be seamlessly integrated into other microstructure evolution models.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.616
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207