A comparative investigation for the nondestructive testing of honeycomb structures by holographic interferometry and infrared thermography
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nondestructive testing (NDT) of honeycomb sandwich structures has been the subject of several studies. Classical techniques such as ultrasound testing and x-rays are commonly used to inspect these structures. Holographic interferometry (HI) and infrared thermography (IT) have shown to be interesting alternatives. Holography has been successfully used to detect debonding between the skin and the honeycomb core on honeycomb panels under a controlled environment. Active thermography has proven to effectively identify the most common types of defects (water ingress, debonding, crushed core, surface impacts) normally present in aeronautical honeycomb parts while inspecting large surfaces in a fast manner. This is very attractive for both the inspection during the manufacturing process and for in situ regular NDT assessment. A comparative experimental investigation is discussed herein to evaluate the performance of HI and IT for the NDT on a honeycomb panel with fabricated defects. The main advantages and limitations of both techniques are enumerated and discussed. © 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it