MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131061560 · doi:10.1115/imece2025-164150

Analysis of Variations in Glass Coating for Precision Forging of Titanium Components

2025· article· W7131061560 on OpenAlexaff
Pascal Clément, Jocelyn Veilleux, David Rancourt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFritExtrusionCoatingViscosityForgingTitaniumLubricationLubricant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The extrusion of titanium billets is a complex process that requires lubrication to reduce friction and protect the dies. Typical lubricant used in extrusion is glass frit, which reduces heat transfer, friction, and protects the billet from oxidation. However, lack of knowledge on the effects of the frit’s chemical composition and spray pulverisation parameters can lead to manufacturing defects. This study employs an exploratory approach to investigate variations in the semi-automated process of coating titanium billets in an industrial context. The approach involves examining the glass frit composition, pulverisation methods and dilution strategies to determine if there are variations and their possible impact on the billet before forging. Results indicate disparities in the alumina content of the glass frit and weight differences between good and bad batches. Also, the feedstock dilution method prior to its pulverisation has been identified as a potential source of spraying variation due to the non-Newtonian behavior. Finally, the pulverisation process analysis reveals that coating thickness is affected by flow rate and viscosity variation.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207