MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028513192 · doi:10.1117/12.385034

<title>Role of data fusion in NDE for aging aircraft</title>

2000· article· en· W2028513192 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Forsyth, Jerzy P. Komorowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirframeNondestructive testingEddy-current testingEddy currentStructural integritySensor fusionComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)CorrosionEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionEngineeringReliability engineeringStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceElectrical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As structural integrity models for aging aircraft begin to include the effects of corrosion and corrosion-fatigue, nondestructive evaluation (NDE) techniques will be called upon to provide metrics of corrosion for input to these models. It is unlikely that any one NDE technique can provide all the required metrics to characterize the condition of complex airframe structures. This paper discusses how data fusion can be used to integrate the results of multiple NDE techniques into a form suitable for input to structural models. Examples of the inspection of service-retired lap joints with NDE techniques including pulsed eddy current, conventional eddy current, Edge of Light, and D Sight are given. Significant metrics for structural models of the joint are discussed, and the performance of the individual NDE techniques on the metrics of corrosion and fatigue is evaluated. The results are used to generate a set of requirements for data fusion system to successfully transform the NDE data to a form a suitable for input to the structural models.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207