MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407028637 · doi:10.1016/j.jmrt.2025.01.220

Towards optimizing the thermal processes in aluminum alloys using a full-field CA based approach for static recrystallization modeling

2025· article· en· W4407028637 on OpenAlexafffund
Abhijit Brahme, Chal-Lan Park, Jeffrey Tschirhart, Aaditya Lakshmanan, Sazol Kumar Das, Kaan Inal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Research and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsNovelis (Canada)University of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNovelis
KeywordsMaterials scienceRecrystallization (geology)AluminiumThermalDynamic recrystallizationMetallurgyEngineering physicsThermodynamicsHot workingMicrostructureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A combination of thermal and mechanical processing is used to produce flat rolled aluminum products. Typically, hot rolled sheets undergo significant time at elevated temperatures during coil cooling. This results in static recrystallization. It is important to understand the linkage between the annealing schedule and the microstructure development to design robust manufacturing process that maximizes product performance and minimizes material loss in the subsequent product manufacturing. To achieve this, accurate process-microstructure linkage models are needed. This work proposes a framework capable of handling complex annealing schedules and can be used to predict microstructure evolution and the kinetics of recrystallization. The framework uses measured data like the electron backscatter diffraction maps and the annealing schedule as inputs. It uses the measured data to calculate internal variables like the stored energy and predict the evolved microstructure. The results are validated with measured data. The proposed model can further be utilized to optimize the manufacturing process while minimizing expensive plant trials.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Research and TechnologySame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207