MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009476106 · doi:10.1142/s0217984908015711

EVALUATION OF SUB-SURFACE MATERIAL PROPERTIES USING MINIMUM REFLECTION PROFILES METHOD

2008· article· en· W2009476106 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dong-Yeol Kim, Hak-Joon Kim, Sung-Jin Song, Sung-Duk Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Physics Letters B · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsMaterials scienceRayleigh scatteringRayleigh waveReflection (computer programming)OpticsSurface roughnessSurface finishSurface waveSurface (topology)Total internal reflectionRadiationComposite materialGeometryPhysicsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backscattered Rayleigh waves from the surface and/or sub-surface of specimens can be changed by scatterers such as micro-cracks, grain boundaries and surface roughness as well as by variations in material properties. In fact, rough surface generates higher energy of backscattered Rayleigh wave than smooth one. So, it is strongly needed to have a quantitative method to evaluate the variation of material properties only. To address such a need, we propose a new method, named as "minimum reflection profile" which measures energy variation of reflected waves from the surface of specimens as changing the angle of incident wave from normal to beyond Rayleigh angle in a pitch-catch immersion setup. Because of minimum reflection profile is less sensitive to roughness of surface than backward radiation profile. Also, we explore performance of the minimum reflection profiles by evaluating the sub-surface material properties of well known materials with various material properties.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Physics Letters BSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207