MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076016443 · doi:10.1063/1.4789137

Root crack sizing using phased array inspections and autoregressive spectral extrapolation signal processing

2013· article· en· W2076016443 on OpenAlexaff
James T. Caldwell, Babak Shakibi, Michael Moles, Anthony N. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhased arrayExtrapolationAcousticsSampling (signal processing)Autoregressive modelSignal processingSIGNAL (programming language)SizingOpticsMaterials scienceEngineeringMathematicsElectronic engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceStatisticsDigital signal processingElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phased array inspection was conducted on a V-butt welded steel sample with multiple shallow flaws of varying depths. The inspection measurements were processed using Wiener filtering and Autoregressive Spectral Extrapolation (AS) to enhance the signals. Phased array inspections were conducted using multiple phased array probes of varying nominal central frequencies (2.25, 4, 5 and 10 MHz). This paper describes the measured results, which show high accuracy, typically in the range of 0.1-0.2 mm. The results concluded that: 1. There was no statistical difference between the calculated flaw depths from phased array inspections at different flaw tip angles. 2. There was no statistical difference in flaw depths calculated using phased array data collected from either side of the weld. 3. Flaws with depths less than the estimated probe signal shear wavelength could not be sized. 4. Finally, there was no statistical difference in the calculated flaw depths using phased array probes with different sampling frequencies and destructive measurements of the flaws.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207