MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041405817 · doi:10.1109/jsen.2013.2281368

Real Time Pulsed Eddy Current Detection of Cracks in F/A-18 Inner Wing Spar Using Discriminant Separation of Modified Principal Components Analysis Scores

2013· article· en· W2041405817 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Francis Horan, P. R. Underhill, Thomas W. Krause

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Sensors Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSparWingEddy currentStructural engineeringMaterials sciencePrincipal component analysisFastenerLinear discriminant analysisAcousticsComposite materialEngineeringComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aluminum inner wing spars of F/A-18 Hornet aircraft may undergo stress corrosion cracking along the spar between the fasteners that secure carbon-fiber/epoxy composite skin to the wing. Inspection of the spar through the wing skin is required to avoid wing disassembly. The thickness of the skin varies between 9 and 21 mm (0.36-0.83 in) and fasteners may be either titanium or ferrous. Pulsed eddy currents (PECs), generated by a probe centered over the fastener, demonstrate the capability of detecting simulated cracks within spars with the wing skin present. Comparison of signals from separate pick-up coils, mounted to either side of the excitation coil, is used to detect differences in induced eddy current fields, which arise in the presence of cracks. To overcome variability in PEC signal response due to variation in: 1) skin thickness; 2) fastener material and size; and 3) centering over fasteners, a large calibration data set is acquired. Multidimensional scores from a modified principal components analysis (PCA) of the data are reduced to 1-D using a discriminant analysis method. Under inspection conditions, calibration PCA scores combined with discriminant analysis permit rapid real time go/no-go PEC detection of cracks in F/A-18 inner wing spar.

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)0.000
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 score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Sensors JournalSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207