MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995843862 · doi:10.1088/0957-0233/13/2/303

Magnetic flux leakage inspection of tailor-welded blanks

2001· article· en· W1995843862 on OpenAlexaff
Sydney O’Connor, L. Clapham, Peter Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic flux leakageWeldingHall effect sensorPlotterMaterials scienceMagnetLeakage (economics)AcousticsMagnetic fluxFlux (metallurgy)Mechanical engineeringMagnetic fieldComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringMetallurgyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feasibility study was conducted on the application of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspection to the evaluation of weld quality in automotive tailor-welded blanks (TWB). Using a permanent magnet configuration, magnetic flux was directed through the weld region of a TWB. A Hall effect sensor was coupled to the movement of a digital plotter and was, thereby, scanned around the weld region. Signals from the Hall effect sensor were processed and correlated with defects to determine corresponding MFL signatures. Simulated through-hole defects as small as 0.34 mm in diameter were readily detected. Furthermore, there was a reasonably linear relationship between the MFL signals associated with these defects and the diameter of the defect hole. Preliminary tests with specimens having naturally occurring defects such as concavity, pinholes, and undercutting, indicate that the MFL technique has excellent potential as an inspection method in this application.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207