Solving Ambiguity in EBSD Indexing of Long-Period Stacking Ordered (LPSO) Phase in Mg with Template Matching Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnesium (Mg) alloys with long-period stacking ordered (LPSO) phases are receiving increasing interest because of their excellent mechanical performance. The close similarity in atomic stacking sequences between different LPSO polytypes and Mg lattice often leads to ambiguous indexing in electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD), a commonly used material characterization technique. Instead of the Hough transformation approach used in commercial software, an alternative indexing approach, which can catch subtle differences by matching experimental patterns with simulated ones, is explored in this study. Our results, showing ~94% of mapping data being correctly indexed as the target phase, 14H LPSO, demonstrate the capability of not only resolving the LPSO phases but also distinguishing different LPSO polytypes. This approach offers a valuable, if not unique, solution for the microscale characterization of LPSO phases, enabling precise microstructure tuning to further promote the mechanical properties of Mg alloys.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".