MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058876790 · doi:10.1299/jsmea.45.262

Development of Simplified Ultrasonic CT System for Imaging of Weld Metal and It's Comparison with TOFD Method

2002· article· en· W2058876790 on OpenAlexaff
Kyung-Cho Kim, Hiroaki FUKUHARA, Hisashi Yamawaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJSME International Journal Series A · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingUltrasonic sensorJoint (building)Materials sciencePlane (geometry)AcousticsOpticsMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, as a new measurement method to estimate the structure change of weld metal, the simplified ultrasonic CT system, which uses the information of three directions, that is, 90°, +45° and −45° about inspection plane is developed. Use of simplified ultrasonic CT system has two merits: Firstly, the measurement time is very short comparing with general CT. Secondly, it can detect sensitively very infinitesimal defect in vertical or slant direction about inspection plane because the obtained image is not C scan image but CT image calculated from three directions. From these merits, this method can be considered as a very effective method for the evaluation of material condition. In order to compare the performance of simplified ultrasonic CT, the CT image obtained from several specimens with several simple defects was compared with the D scan image obtained by TOFD (Time of Flight Diffraction) method. We can see simple defects more clearly by new proposed method. Experimental results on several kinds of specimen, having welded joint by electron beam welding, welded joint by electron beam welding and fatigue crack showed that the obtained C scan or CT image has better resolution than the D scan image by TOFD method and shows similar image to actual shape.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJSME International Journal Series ASame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207