MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408492885 · doi:10.2497/jjspm.15c-t1-24

Study of Post-Atomization Treatments Aimed at Optimizing the Rheology of Water Atomized Tool Steel Powders for Laser Powder-Bed Fusion Additive Manufacturing

2025· article· en· W4408492885 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Gélinas, Denis Mutel, Carl Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder Metallurgy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceRheologyFusionMetallurgyLaserComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From an economical perspective, the use of water atomization for the production of feedstock for laser powder-bed fusion represents an interesting alternative to plasma and gas atomization. However, water-atomized powders are characterized by lower flowability. In this regard, it was previously shown that post-processing water-atomized tool steel powders with a thermo-mechanical spheroidization treatment (TMST) could improve average particle sphericity, and thus, flow properties and apparent density. In this work, the dynamic rheological properties of water-atomized tool steel powder lots that were subjected to different TMST conditions were characterized using a rotating drum apparatus and a Hall flowmeter. Additionally, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm was employed to characterize the morphological features of each powder lot. This study not only determined optimal TMST conditions to maximize flowability, but also revealed valuable insights on the relative importance of particle morphology and surface properties in governing the rheological behavior of water-atomized powders.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japan Society of Powder and Powder MetallurgySame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207