Comparative study for the nondestructive testing of advanced ceramic materials by infrared thermography and holographic interferometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advanced ceramic materials are increasingly employed in varied and new applications where improved electrical, mechanical and/or thermal properties are sought. For instance, in a manner similar to carbon or glass fiber reinforced plastics, ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) are designed to improve the naturally brittle characteristics of monolithic ceramics thanks to the inclusion of fibers. Among the main interests for advanced ceramics are the increase in the operation temperature of components, the elimination of the use of cooling fluids, and weight savings. In this paper, the capabilities of infrared thermography and holographic interferometry are investigated and compared for the nondestructive assessment of advanced ceramic materials using three experimental specimens: (1) a monolithic green ceramic tile with fabricated defects, (2) a CMC specimen (from production reject) with a porous alumina matrix reinforced with glass fibers, and (3) a sandwich structure consisting on a carbon fiber honeycomb core with a ceramic plate bonded in one side.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".