MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1763914328 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.011

Multivariate Data Analysis of Gas-Metal Arc Welding Process

2015· article· en· W1763914328 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajesh Ranjan, Anurag Talati, Megan Ho, Hussain Bharmal, Vinay A. Bavdekar, Vinay Prasad, Patricio F. Méndez

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWeldingMultivariate statisticsPartial least squares regressionPrincipal component analysisProcess (computing)Multivariate analysisGas metal arc weldingCluster analysisComputer scienceData miningArc weldingEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas-metal arc welding is a widely used welding process. The testing of such welds is done offline and in most cases after the welding operation is over. To monitor the progress of the welding run, it is essential to develop multivariate data analysis techniques that can classify the welds into good or bad runs and also be able to predict the quality variables. In this work, popular multivariate data analysis methods such as hierarchical clustering analysis, principal component analysis and partial least squares are used to develop classification and regression models to predict the weld quality based on various parameters. The results indicate that models obtained using these methods are effective in classification and prediction of weld quality and can be further developed for online and industrial uses in weld run monitoring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFAC-PapersOnLineSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207