MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403586503 · doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2024.137596

Experimental verification of a common assumption in the use of concentration-dependent interdiffusion coefficient

2024· article· en· W4403586503 on OpenAlexafffund
SAMUEL AFOLABI, O.A. Ojo

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Interdiffusion coefficient, D(C), is used to predict and analyze diffusion. • A general view that D(C) at any temperature and time can predict diffusion. • D(C) at long time fails to predict concentration profiles at shorter times. • Diffusion-induced stress varies and causes the D(C) to isothermally change. There has generally been a view that concentration-dependent interdiffusion coefficient, D(C), obtained at any diffusion temperature and time is a material constant and can be reliably used to predict diffusion effects at all other isothermal diffusion times. This notion which is implicitly predicated on the assumption that diffusion-induced stress (DIS) rapidly and completely relaxes once formed and does not influence D(C) is experimentally verified in the present work. The results of the study show that reliably computed D(C) from concentration profile obtained at long diffusion time fails to correctly predict concentration profiles at shorter diffusion periods, due to isothermal variation of the D(C) with time. Accordingly, instead of continuing to assume that D(C) is time-independent and can be reliably used to predict diffusion effects at any isothermal diffusion time, without appropriate experimental support, proper experimental verification of this crucial concept in other alloy systems, as done in the present work, is imperative.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials LettersSame topicNumerical methods in inverse problemsFrench-language works237,207