MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118216704 · doi:10.1109/ultsym.2000.922652

Finite element determination of the absolute magnitude of an ultrasonic pulse produced by an EMAT

2002· article· en· W2118216704 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic acoustic transducerAcousticsFinite element methodElectromagnetic coilUltrasonic sensorCurrent densityTransducerMaterials scienceCurrent (fluid)ConductorPulse (music)Electrical conductorPhysicsOpticsUltrasonic testingComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic acoustic transducers or EMATs for short, are investigated in transmitting mode for nonferromagnetic conducting materials. Two different finite element (FE) formulations, derived from different definitions of source current density, are compared. A differential equation based on an incomplete equation for the source current density is solved analytically for the magnetic vector potential (MVP). To validate the FE results, one-dimensional (1D) analytical solutions are used. An EMAT example containing six source conductors is also modeled. The FE results are compared with results obtained from existing methods for two EMAT meander coil conductor sizes. The results show the importance of using the complete equation for the source current density in the modeling of EMATs, in order to properly account for skin and proximity effects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207