MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407998904 · doi:10.3390/met15030251

The Effect of Annealing on the First Hydrogenation Behavior of Atomized Ti48.8Fe46.0Mn5.2 Alloy

2025· article· en· W4407998904 on OpenAlexafffund
Seyedehfaranak Hosseinigourajoubi, Chris Schade, Jacques Huot

Bibliographic record

VenueMetals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHydrogen Storage and Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersMitacs
KeywordsAlloyAnnealing (glass)Materials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report the effect of annealing on the first hydrogenation behavior of Ti48.8Fe46.0Mn5.2 alloy. This alloy was produced by gas atomization, and a portion of the powder was subjected to vacuum annealing at 1120 °C for 1 h. The goal was to investigate the usefulness of this atomized powder for hydrogen storage and also to investigate the effect of annealing. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images revealed that both atomized and annealed alloys exhibit a two-phase structure. The atomized alloy consists of a main TiFe matrix and a filamentous Ti2Fe-like phase. After annealing, the microstructure is globular. In addition to the microstructure, there was a change in the chemical composition of the matrix and secondary phase after annealing. The first hydrogenation at room temperature of both atomized and annealed samples required cold rolling. However, the kinetics was much slower for the annealed sample compared to the atomized sample. After the first hydrogenation, the XRD analysis identified the main phases as TiFe, TiFeH0.94, and Ti2FeH3, indicating that both the TiFe and Ti2Fe phases participated in hydrogen absorption during hydrogenation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMetalsSame topicHydrogen Storage and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207