MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061823850 · doi:10.1177/1099636209105377

Nondestructive Evaluation of Sandwich Structures: A Review of Some Inspection Techniques

2009· review· en· W2061823850 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sandwich Structures & Materials · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndigenous and Northern Affairs CanadaFederal Aviation AdministrationIowa State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNondestructive testingEngineeringAviationField (mathematics)Construction engineeringComputer scienceSystems engineeringForensic engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a summary of research and development conducted by the author's group at Iowa State University for the nondestructive evaluation (NDE) of sandwich structures in aviation, space, and marine applications. The targets of inspection include manufacture defects, in-service damage due to human and natural causes, and the inspection of repairs on sandwich structures. The emphases adopted in the development of NDE techniques and instruments for sandwich structures are imaging capability, quantitative inspection, and the ease of use in the field. This article describes the various NDE methods for sandwich structures, especially those techniques and instruments developed at Iowa State University that had gone through the research, development, and field test stages.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.310 · 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