MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026448230 · doi:10.1179/136217101101538541

Microresistance spot welding of Kovar, steel, and nickel

2001· article· en· W2026448230 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsSpot weldingWeldingMaterials scienceElectric resistance weldingElectrodeMetallurgyHeat-affected zoneGas metal arc weldingNickelComposite materialChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microresistance spot welding of 0.2–0.5 mm thickness Kovar, steel, and nickel using different types of power supply was investigated. The effects of process parameters (welding current/pulse energy, electrode force, and welding time/pulse width) on joint strength and nugget diameter were studied. The maximum values of welding current and nugget diameter that did not result in weld metal expulsion and/or electrode–sheet sticking were determined. The difference between micro- and ‘large scale’ resistance spot welding was also considered. It was noted that the difference between micro- and large scale resistance spot welding is due not only to the difference in the scale of the joints, but also to the fundamental difference in the electrode forces (pressures) used. Based on the results of the present work, nominal process parameters are recommended for microresistance spot welding of Kovar, steel, and nickel when using different power supplies.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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