External Reference Samples for Residual Stress Analysis by X-Ray Diffraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The GFAC (French Association for residual stress analysis) decided in 2007 to work on external reference samples for residual stress analysis by X-ray diffraction as defined in the XPA 09-285 and EN 15305-2009 standards. Seven materials are studied: ferritic steel, martensitic steel, aluminium alloy, titanium alloy, 2 types of Nickel-Chromium alloy and tungsten thin layers deposited on silicon wafers. The purpose of this external round robin campaign is threefold: (i) to give possibilities for each laboratory involved in the campaign test to obtain external reference samples for each material tested, (ii) to validate a common procedure for qualification of external samples and (iii) to commercialise validated external reference samples through the GFAC association. A common approach of X-Ray diffraction parameters, samples geometry and standard procedure has been chosen and adopted by each laboratory involved in these tests. No indication in terms of residual stress calculation method is given; the choice of the method (centroid, middle point, maximum of peak, fitting…) is the choice of the laboratory according to their X-ray diffraction set-ups, softwares and experience. Once all samples are analysed, values given by each laboratory are compared and analysed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".