Examination of Dodd and Deeds solutions for a transmit-receive eddy current probe above a layered planar structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exact solutions for the electromagnetic response of a transmit-receive coil pair situated above two parallel plates separated by a gap, were developed using the recently published general model of Desjardins et al. that accounts for all electromagnetic interactions between the voltage-driven probe and the conducting samples. This model was then compared to the well-known model developed by Dodd and Deeds, which assumes a constant amplitude sinusoidal current and an open-circuit pick-up coil. Both models were compared with experimental results that measured the gap profile for a Grade 2 Titanium plate (54 μΩ·cm) over a SS-316 stainless steel second layer plate (74 μΩ·cm). These materials simulated the electromagnetic properties of a Zr 2.5% Nb pressure tube and Zr-2 calandria tube, respectively, as found in the fuel channels of CANDU® reactors. It was observed that while the Dodd and Deeds’ model as applied to this work achieved a good shape agreement with experimental data for excitation frequencies at 2 kHz, at the higher frequency of 16 kHz good agreement was not achieved. In contrast, the model of Desjardin’s et al., adapted for a transmit-receive probe configuration above two infinite flat plates, achieved an excellent shape agreement at both frequencies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".