MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Real time monitoring of laser beam welding keyhole depth by laser interferometry

2014· article· en· W2026257690 on OpenAlexaff
J. J. Blecher, Christopher M. Galbraith, C. Van Vlack, Todd Palmer, James M. Fräser, Paul J. L. Webster, T. DebRoy

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNuclear Energy University ProgramOffice of Nuclear Energy
KeywordsKeyholeMaterials scienceLaser beam weldingWeldingLaserOpticsInterferometryBeam (structure)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utility of a new laser interferometric technique, inline coherent imaging, for real time keyhole depth measurement during laser welding is demonstrated on five important engineering alloys. The keyhole depth was measured at 200 kHz with a spatial resolution of 22 μm using a probe beam, which enters the keyhole coaxially with the process beam. Keyhole fluctuations limited average weld depth determination to a resolution on the order of 100 μm. Real time keyhole depth data are compared with the weld depths measured from the corresponding metallographic cross-sections. With the exception of an aluminium alloy, the technique accurately measured the average weld depth with differences of less than 5%. The keyhole depth growth rates at the start of welding are measured and compare well with order of magnitude calculations. The method described here is recommended for the real time measurement and control of keyhole depth in at least five different alloys.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations54
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience and Technology of Welding & JoiningSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207