MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026431427 · doi:10.1117/12.599757

Validation of a Lamb wave-based structural health monitoring system for aircraft applications

2005· article· en· W2026431427 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seth S. Kessler, Dong Jin Shim

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedSoftwareComputer scienceStructural health monitoringReliability (semiconductor)Embedded systemReliability engineeringReal-time computingEngineeringOperating systemStructural engineeringComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural Health Monitoring technologies have the potential to reduce life-cycle costs and improve reliability for aircraft. Previous research conducted by the Metis Design Corporation has demonstrated the ability of Lamb wave methods to provide reliable information regarding the presence, location and type of damage in coupon-level specimens. Several critical system components have been developed during the course of this research, including circuitry and packaging, and integrated into the Monitoring & Evaluation Technology Integration (M.E.T.I.) Disk. In order to demonstrate the validity of M.E.T.I.-Disks for aircraft applications, a testbed has been fabricated by dividing a 1/8" plate of aircraft-grade aluminum into four equal quadrants with several c-channels. M.E.T.I.-Disk nodes were then placed in the center of each quadrant, and data was collected and interpreted by the METISv2.10 software package. The results produced by this software validated the M.E.T.I.-Disk by using a single undamaged cell to calibrate the system, and then correctly identify that there was no damage present in the remaining quadrants. Next, representative damage was introduced into several combinations of the quadrants, and the software was executed again to query the structure. The resulting data revealed the presence and location of damage, while still identifying the two undamaged regions.

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)0.002
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 score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207