MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981381058

Effect of manganese and silicon on iron intermetallics in 206 foundry alloy

2010· article· en· W6981381058 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPoetry Analysis and Criticism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntermetallicAlloyManganeseFoundryDifferential scanning calorimetryAluminium
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron is one of common impurities in 206 alloys and detrimental platelet-like iron intermetallics can easily form at high iron contents resulted from the increasing use of recycled aluminum alloys. The present work has investigated the iron intermetallics formed in Al-4.5 wt.% Cu alloy with 0.3 wt.% Fe and the effect of Mn and Si on the morphology and transformation of these iron intermetallics using thermal analysis, image analysis, differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results show that there are three major types of iron intermetallics according to their morphologies: platelet-like, block and Chinese script. It is observed that single addition of either Mn or Si, even at high contents, can only partially convert the iron intermetallics from platelet-like to Chinese script. All the platelet-like iron intermetallics can be transformed to Chinese script at appropriate addition of both Mn and Si with a combination of 0.3 wt% Mn and 0.3 wt% Si.

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 score0.005

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicPoetry Analysis and CriticismFrench-language works237,207