MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987541861 · doi:10.1080/10589750600784902

Near-field microwave non-destructive testing for defect shape and material identification

2006· article· en· W1987541861 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNondestructive Testing And Evaluation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBlackberry (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolverDiscretizationOperator (biology)Inverse problemLossy compressionInverseFast Fourier transformField (mathematics)AlgorithmMathematical analysisComputer scienceFrequency domainApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical optimizationGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We propose a near-field approach to microwave non-destructive detection and evaluation of defects, which is based on electromagnetic (EM) numerical modeling of the forward problem and on an adjoint-variable approach to the calculation of the response Jacobians of the forward model. The measured response of the structure under test is matched to that of the forward model. The inverse least square problem is solved iteratively by an optimizer. The approach features high computational efficiency due to the use of adjoint-based response sensitivities, which are developed here to handle materials with complex permittivity. It allows the recovery of both shape and material parameters of the defect. Examples of defects in lossy media are considered. The numerical EM analysis is carried out with a frequency-domain solver based on the transmission line method. The initial discretization grid is preserved throughout the optimization iterations. Keywords: Electromagnetic modelingInverse problemsNon-destructive testingOptimizationSensitivity analysis Notes All matrices and vectors are in bold italics. We define the gradient operator as a row operator (Haug et al. Citation1986). When F represents a real function, equation (Equation7) is where R returns the real value of the complex quantity in the brackets. For a real-valued response F, the semi-analytical formula (Equation10) is . The subscripts R and I denote the real and imaginary parts of the complex quantity, respectively.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.799
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.237 · 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