Simulation of Four-Point Test for DC Electrical Resistivity of Moderately Conductive Solids—Error due to Nonideal Specimen Size and Current Electrode Configuration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electrical resistivity of moderately conductive solids is determined according to ASTM D4496 [1] using the four-probe method. The ideal specimen is long, thin, and of uniform cross section and composition. The ideal configuration of current electrodes is uniformly covering the opposite ends of the specimen to create a current path in the axial direction through the specimen. The purpose of this study is to determine what errors may arise from using nonideal specimen size or current-electrode configuration. The dc four-point resistivity test is simulated using a finite element (FE) model, which yields the electric potential distribution in the specimen and the electric current. Specimens in the form of bars and cylinders are studied. Simulations show that the calculated resistivity will be false-high when the current electrode is a band around the outside of the specimen or strip on one side of the specimen and when the parameter (R or H)/((Lo-Li)/2) is greater than 0.5, where R is the radius of a cylindrical specimen, H is the height of a bar-shaped specimen, (Lo-Li)/2 is the distance between a current electrode and the nearest potential electrode. The magnitude of the error reported in this study is on the order of the error that can arise due to errors in measuring dimensions of the specimen.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".