MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407188189 · doi:10.1080/13621718.2016.1180844

Electrode life of aluminium resistance spot welding in automotive applications: a survey

2016· article· en· W2407188189 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsPROTO Manufacturing (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsSpot weldingMaterials scienceElectrodeWeldingAluminiumElectric resistance weldingMetallurgyElectrical contactsContact resistanceComposite materialLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short electrode life has been one of the crucial issues for aluminium resistance spot welding in high-volume automobile manufacturing. A fair amount of heat may be generated at the electrode/workpiece interface because of the high electrical contact resistance of the aluminium oxide layers. Correspondingly, rapid electrode degradation is observed due to severe Cu–Al alloying, pitting and cavity during welding. This issue has not yet been fully addressed. This survey focuses on the current studies of understanding and development of electrode life improvement specifically on those that extend electrode life via optimising the electrical contact resistance at the interface, including altering the surface conditions of the workpiece, weld parameters development and weld equipment selections, and new electrode designs, and etc.

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)0.001
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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