MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415674836 · doi:10.1080/00084433.2025.2580023

Research on inclusion control in saw wire steel through top slag refining

2025· article· en· W4415674836 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengwei Yu, Alexander McLean, Liangjun Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Metallurgical Quarterly · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefining (metallurgy)Inclusion (mineral)Slag (welding)Liquid steelContinuous casting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saw wire steel, a high-cost, quality-determining solar wafer consumable, has seen surging demand with China’s booming photovoltaic industry. However, its ultra-fine diameter and higher strength than tire cord steel greatly increases inclusion sensitivity and subsequent wire breakage, creating an urgent need for better inclusion control. This study investigated the evolution mechanisms of inclusions during its refining and the effects of top slag composition on molten steel and inclusions, using simulated top slag experiments and FactSage thermodynamic calculations. It shows that only Al2O3 content in inclusions remains stable while other components vary significantly, which makes simulated steel-slag experiments only applicable for guiding Al2O3 control in industry production. Increasing basicity or Al2O3 in slag raises [Al]s content in steel, which in turn leads to an augmentation in the Al2O3 content within inclusions. As the Al2O3 content in the inclusions increases, the proportion of low-melting-point inclusions first rises and then falls. Additionally, the deformability of the inclusions shows a distinct positive correlation with the proportion of low-melting-point inclusions. Under laboratory conditions, maintaining a slag basicity of 1 and an Al2O3 content of approximately 2% results in refined inclusions that exhibit the lowest melting points and optimal deformability.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueCanadian Metallurgical QuarterlySame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207