MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787888020 · doi:10.1007/s40192-018-0106-y

A Graph Theory-Based Automated Twin Recognition Technique for Electron Backscatter Diffraction Analysis

2018· article· en· W2787888020 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cédric Pradalier, Pierre-Alexandre Juan, Rodney J. McCabe, Laurent Capolungo

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrating materials and manufacturing innovation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBasic Energy SciencesAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsElectron backscatter diffractionComputer scienceGraphical user interfaceMetisMicrostructureComputational scienceSoftwareGraphData miningRendering (computer graphics)Pattern recognition (psychology)Theoretical computer scienceAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceCrystallographyProgramming languageDatabaseChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present article introduces a new software, Microstructure Evaluation Tool for Interface Statistics (METIS), that performs high-throughput microstructure statistical analysis from electron backscatter diffraction maps. Emphasis is placed on the detection of twin domains in hexagonal close-packed metals. The numerical framework on which METIS is built leverages graph theory, group structures, and associated numerical algorithms to automatically detect twins and unravel both their intrinsic characteristics features and those pertaining to their interactions. The proposed graphical interface allows for the detection and correction of unlikely twin/parent associations rendering the approach applicable to highly deformed microstructures. Twin statistics and microstructural data are classified and saved in a relational database that can be interrogated via either GUI or SQL requests to reveal a wide spectrum of features of the microstructure. Illustration of the approach is performed in the case of zirconium.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrating materials and manufacturing innovationSame topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207