MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992075758 · doi:10.1784/insi.46.11.666.52281

Evaluation of closed cracks by analysis of subharmonic ultrasound

2004· article· en· W1992075758 on OpenAlexaff
Kazushi Yamanaka, Tsuyoshi Mihara, Toshihiro Tsuji

Bibliographic record

VenueInsight - Non-Destructive Testing and Condition Monitoring · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubharmonicUltrasoundAcousticsStructural engineeringEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Cracks in solids can be detected by ultrasound if they are open. However, their detection is not easy when they are closed with a closure stress, and it is a fundamental problem in ultrasonic testing. Subharmonics with half the input frequency is potentially useful in the detection and evaluation of such cracks. We developed analytical and numerical theories accounting for the crack parameters, such as closure stress and crack surface conditions, for the first time and proved their validity by comparison with experiments on a well-defined fatigue crack in aluminum alloy. Based on these theories, we propose a novel method to estimate size of partially closed cracks, which solves the fundamental problem in ultrasonic testing. Introduction: Cracks in solids can be detected by ultrasound if they are open [1,2], since the ultrasound is reflected or scattered by the crack as shown in Fig.1(a). However, it is very difficult when the crack is closed since the ultrasound is transmitted as shown in (c). When the crack is partially closed with a closure stress, or by oxide films, as shown in Fig.1(b), the ultrasound is partially transmitted and the crack detection is not easy. This has been a fundamental problem in

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.023
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

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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsight - Non-Destructive Testing and Condition MonitoringSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207