MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131529888 · doi:10.1109/isaom.2001.916576

Effective applications of computer-vision techniques in packaging design concept evaluation

2002· article· en· W2131529888 on OpenAlexafffund
Hua Lu, Jiyuan Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTest dataExperimental dataComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Strain energy density functionCurvatureShearing (physics)Consistency (knowledge bases)Structural engineeringReliability engineeringMechanical engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In packaging design concept verification, interpretations of data obtained from test vehicles are preferably supported by physics based analysis. This is vital when correlation between the thermal/mechanical test data and results from accelerated life testing is sought in order to predict the service life of a prototype. A proposed approach that integrates experimental and analytical procedures has been devised for such analyses. A feature of the approach is the wide variety of the measured data. Other than the test parameters, the approach collects temperature and time dependent deformation data at board, component and interconnect levels. Measurements in this work include surface warpage, in-plane displacements, rigid-body rotation and strains, assembling or residual stress/strain, failure loads and strength limits, etc. From the raw data, further quantities were deduced by applying the theories of beams/plates and material constitutive relations to further enrich the database. Inferred data include surface curvature, cross-sectional bending moment and shearing force, stress, strain rate and strain energy density, etc. The data variety allows better confirmation of the consistency among test results obtained with different techniques. It also facilitates applications of different theories for life prediction and failure mode and root-cause diagnosis. The comparison of different model predictions for same problem is aimed to provide a guide to the reliability model selection and application. This paper presents the experimental and analytical procedures together with some application examples to illustrate the approach.

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 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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207