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 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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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