MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970416379 · doi:10.1179/136217100101538218

Selection of welding process to fabricate cruciform joints using analytic hierarchic process based on qualitative factors

2000· article· en· W1970416379 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsWeldingCruciformSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)Materials scienceManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering drawingComputer scienceEngineeringMetallurgyArtificial intelligenceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection of a welding process is an unstructured decision problem involving multiple attributes (factors). To provide decision support for the welding engineer, an all encompassing analysis of multiple attributes is necessary. The present paper reports a new procedure using an analytic hierarchic process for the selection of a welding process to fabricate cruciform joints of ASTM 517 ‘F’ grade steels, based on the qualitative factors of the welding processes, when the quantitative factors appear to be equal.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.181
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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