MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W21906544 · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2011.07.004

SMT Process Qualification: What You Need to Know Beyond AOI & Co.

2001· article· en· W21906544 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Management Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Production (economics)Reliability engineeringQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AOI, X-ray, functional testing – all typical inline testing and inspection equipment. They allow nearly complete monitoring of the production process – based on pre-programmed decision thresholds. One thing is still done manually, however: the qualification and improvement of the production process. This article presents an approach to comprehensive process qualification given the improvement potential in today‘s inspection environment. The idea is simple: if we consider the production process, we see that modern production systems are generally capable of manufacturing quality constant within a certain tolerance range, by means of correctly adjusted process parameters. Qualifying a production system proves more difficult, however. Qualification depends on the ability to detect souces of faults, to register the totality of all possible faults, and to assess the effects of these faults.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.374
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.300 · 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