MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quantitative Infrared Thermography (IRT) and Holographic Interferometry (HI): Nondestructive Testing (NDT) for Defects Detection in the Silicate Ceramics Industry

2010· article· en· W2015378474 on OpenAlexaff
Стефано Сфарра, Dario Ambrosini, A. Paoletti, Domenica Paoletti, Clemente Ibarra‐Castanedo, A. Bendada, Xavier Maldague

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in science and technology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNondestructive testingCeramicMaterials scienceThermographySilicateShrinkageComposite materialTileForensic engineeringOpacityMetallurgyInfraredOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ceramics are inorganic materials fabricated by a high-temperature chemical reaction. Most ceramics are oxides, but the term is also used for silicides, nitrides and oxynitrides, hybrids and other inorganic materials. It is convenient to consider ceramics that are essentially silicates, called traditional ceramics, separately from all of the others. In the ceramic industry testing systems are seldom employed for detecting on-line the presence of defects in ceramic tiles. Defects in the ceramic body are usually originated during the pressing stage due to the incorrect use of process parameters or to the improper selection of raw materials. These defects are generally characterized by the inclusion of heterogeneous materials or agglomerates, which decreases the structural strength jeopardizing the final quality of the produced piece. Disagreeable repercussions on the sale market, especially on higher-quality ceramics such as porcelain, are characterized by the lack of specific nondestructive testing (NDT) techniques that “certify”, pre-emptive, the quality of the produced piece. The integration of IRT and HI for the NDT of a green ceramic tile with both fabricated and real defects (cracks caused by the natural shrinkage process), allowed us to produce a clear “defects map”.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in science and technologySame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207