Materials Map

Discover the materials research landscape. Find experts, partners, networks.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Contact

The Materials Map is an open tool for improving networking and interdisciplinary exchange within materials research. It enables cross-database search for cooperation and network partners and discovering of the research landscape.

The dashboard provides detailed information about the selected scientist, e.g. publications. The dashboard can be filtered and shows the relationship to co-authors in different diagrams. In addition, a link is provided to find contact information.

×

Materials Map under construction

The Materials Map is still under development. In its current state, it is only based on one single data source and, thus, incomplete and contains duplicates. We are working on incorporating new open data sources like ORCID to improve the quality and the timeliness of our data. We will update Materials Map as soon as possible and kindly ask for your patience.

To Graph

1.080 Topics available

To Map

977 Locations available

693.932 PEOPLE
693.932 People People

693.932 People

Show results for 693.932 people that are selected by your search filters.

←

Page 1 of 27758

→
←

Page 1 of 0

→
PeopleLocationsStatistics
Naji, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 3
  • 2025
Motta, Antonella
  • 8
  • 52
  • 159
  • 2025
Aletan, Dirar
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0
  • 2025
Mohamed, Tarek
  • 1
  • 7
  • 2
  • 2025
Ertürk, Emre
  • 2
  • 3
  • 0
  • 2025
Taccardi, Nicola
  • 9
  • 81
  • 75
  • 2025
Kononenko, Denys
  • 1
  • 8
  • 2
  • 2025
Petrov, R. H.Madrid
  • 46
  • 125
  • 1k
  • 2025
Alshaaer, MazenBrussels
  • 17
  • 31
  • 172
  • 2025
Bih, L.
  • 15
  • 44
  • 145
  • 2025
Casati, R.
  • 31
  • 86
  • 661
  • 2025
Muller, Hermance
  • 1
  • 11
  • 0
  • 2025
Kočí, JanPrague
  • 28
  • 34
  • 209
  • 2025
Šuljagić, Marija
  • 10
  • 33
  • 43
  • 2025
Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-ArtemiBrussels
  • 14
  • 22
  • 158
  • 2025
Azam, Siraj
  • 1
  • 3
  • 2
  • 2025
Ospanova, Alyiya
  • 1
  • 6
  • 0
  • 2025
Blanpain, Bart
  • 568
  • 653
  • 13k
  • 2025
Ali, M. A.
  • 7
  • 75
  • 187
  • 2025
Popa, V.
  • 5
  • 12
  • 45
  • 2025
Rančić, M.
  • 2
  • 13
  • 0
  • 2025
Ollier, Nadège
  • 28
  • 75
  • 239
  • 2025
Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro
  • 4
  • 8
  • 25
  • 2025
Landes, Michael
  • 1
  • 9
  • 2
  • 2025
Rignanese, Gian-Marco
  • 15
  • 98
  • 805
  • 2025

Nieto, Zackery

  • Google
  • 1
  • 5
  • 0

in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%

Topics

Publications (1/1 displayed)

  • 2018Utilization of Machine Learning to Predict the Surface Tension of Metals and Alloyscitations

Places of action

Chart of shared publication
Kumar, Sanjay Shantha
1 / 2 shared
Rodriguez, Arturo
1 / 2 shared
Bronson, Arturo
1 / 4 shared
Kotteda, V. M. Krushnarao
1 / 4 shared
Kumar, Vinod
1 / 17 shared
Chart of publication period
2018

Co-Authors (by relevance)

  • Kumar, Sanjay Shantha
  • Rodriguez, Arturo
  • Bronson, Arturo
  • Kotteda, V. M. Krushnarao
  • Kumar, Vinod
OrganizationsLocationPeople

document

Utilization of Machine Learning to Predict the Surface Tension of Metals and Alloys

  • Kumar, Sanjay Shantha
  • Rodriguez, Arturo
  • Bronson, Arturo
  • Kotteda, V. M. Krushnarao
  • Nieto, Zackery
  • Kumar, Vinod
Abstract

<jats:p>As technology progresses, predictive solutions created by computer generated algorithms are becoming more and more viable. The purpose of this study is to test the predictive capabilities and their values of three different types of predictive algorithms, a multi-variable linear regression algorithm, a nonlinear random forest model, and a TensorFlow deep learning neural network model. To compare each algorithm, we used the surface tensions of the molten pure metals, copper, bismuth, and silver, as well as the copper-bismuth, and copper silver molten alloys. The surface tensions were then compiled into data sets meant for training and testing the algorithms predictive capabilities. Throughout this study, we considered how each algorithm could be corrected in ways to increase its predictability without over-constraining the algorithm to satisfy only these data sets. At the end, it became apparent that although the predictions of each algorithm were able to get to a fairly decent accuracy, the random forest model proved to be the best and most useful algorithm for surface tensions.</jats:p>

Topics
  • impedance spectroscopy
  • surface
  • silver
  • copper
  • random
  • machine learning
  • Bismuth