MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415359426 · doi:10.53063/synsint.2025.53260

Effects of sintering and pressing conditions on the properties of manganese ferrite

2025· article· W4415359426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Faeghinia

Bibliographic record

VenueSynthesis and Sintering · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Synthesis of Ferrites
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMaterials and Energy Research Center
KeywordsSinteringMicrostructureSlurryPressingPorosityFerrite (magnet)Powder metallurgyHydrogenOxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present work, zinc-manganese ferrite powder with stoichiometric composition Fe2O3-0.5ZnO-0.5Mn3O4 was prepared by mixing the constituent oxides and sintering them. The samples were shaped by two methods: dry powder pressing and slurry pressing with 10% water by weight (after drying), with a pressure of 50 MPa. The samples were sintered in a tube furnace in different oxidizing, neutral, and reducing atmospheres at 1050 °C. Under a neutral argon atmosphere, the porosity was reduced by about 2%, compared to the sintering samples in the oxide state. In order to achieve zero porosity, pressing using a slurry is more effective in small-sized parts. Samples sintered in nitrogen atmosphere, at the same temperature and sintering conditions, had smaller grain sizes compared to those sintered in hydrogen and oxide atmospheres. Based on microstructure comparison, sintering in a hydrogen atmosphere probably led to the formation of the gamma phase in ferrite. The change in magnetic permeability of the samples made by slurry and pressing methods was not significant; with increasing frequency, the permeability increased by about 20% in both cases.

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSynthesis and SinteringSame topicMagnetic Properties and Synthesis of FerritesFrench-language works237,207