MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406025524 · doi:10.3390/jmmp9010010

Kinetics of Austenite Formation in a Medium-Carbon, Low-Alloy Steel with an Initial Martensite Microstructure: Influence of Prior Austenite Grain Size

2025· article· en· W4406025524 on OpenAlexafffund
Navneeth Rajakrishnan, Morteza Sadeghifar, P.P. Bhattacharjee, Henri Champliaud, Mohammad Jahazi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of Steels
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHydro-Québec
KeywordsAusteniteMetallurgyMartensiteAlloyMaterials scienceBainiteMicrostructureGrain size

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of prior austenite grain size (PAGS) on the kinetics of austenite formation with an initial martensite microstructure was investigated in a medium-carbon, low-alloy steel. Two distinct PAGS of 117 and 330 μm, representing the range of grain sizes encountered in industries, were considered. In this analysis, high-resolution dilatometry was used to study the formation of austenite during continuous heating experiments. The analysis of the dilatometry results revealed that grain refinement accelerated the rate of austenite formation without impacting its austenite formation temperature. Intermittent quenching tests were conducted to elucidate the nucleation and growth mechanisms of austenite formation using a combination of optical, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). The differences in austenite formation kinetics as a function of prior austenite grain size were quantified and modeled in the framework of diffusion-controlled nucleation and growth theories using the genetic algorithm optimization.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicMicrostructure and Mechanical Properties of SteelsFrench-language works237,207