MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087876215 · doi:10.1002/pc.10212

Nondestructive evaluation methods for damage assessment in fiber‐metal laminates

2000· article· en· W2087876215 on OpenAlexaff
A. Fahr, C. E. Chapman, David S. Forsyth, C. Poon, Jeremy Laliberté

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceNondestructive testingAerospaceComposite materialGLAREEddy currentCorrosionUltrasonic sensorAcousticsEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Structures, Materials and Propulsion Laboratory of the NRC Institute for Aerospace Research (IAR) is engaged in a collaborative project with Bombardier Aerospace. The main objective of the project is to evaluate the potential of applying fiber‐metal laminates (FML) to aircraft types manufactured by Bombardier. As a part of this project, nondestructive evaluation (NDE) procedures have been developed and used at IAR to determine the extent of damage caused by impact, corrosion and fatigue loads in a commercial FML material (GLARE). X‐rays using radioopaque fluids as well as conventional and air‐coupled ultrasonic and eddy current methods have been investigated. This report describes the NDE procedures employed at IAR to assess damage in FML and provides examples of the results obtained utilizing each of the inspection methods and the damage types investigated. Also, the ability of the investigated NDE methods to determine damage size and the accuracy of damage measurements is discussed.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207