MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134427085 · doi:10.5539/mas.v8n2p142

Printed Circuit Board Fault Inspection Based on Eddy Current Testing Using Planar Coil Sensor

2014· article· en· W2134427085 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Socheatra Soeung, Noohul Basheer Zain Ali, Mohd Haris Md Khir, Arash Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinted circuit boardFault (geology)Electromagnetic coilVoltagePlanarEddy-current sensorEddy currentEddy-current testingAcousticsHelmholtz free energyComputer scienceElectrical engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a printed circuit board (PCB) fault inspection method using eddy current testing generated from Helmholtz coils with a planar array-coil sensor to locate and inspect short and open faults on uniformly spaced interconnect single layer PCBs. The differences between the induced voltages from fault-free boards and faulty boards will be recorded in tables and translated into contour plots. The experimental results showed that in the presence of a short fault, the differences between the induced voltages from fault-free and faulty boards are highly negative. However, in the presence of an open fault, the differences between the induced voltages from fault free and faulty boards are highly positive. These highly positive or negative induced voltages can be translated into high density color regions on contour plots. The potential fault positions can be located by observing the color regions of the contour plots with respect to each element of the matrix sensor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207