MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897448362 · doi:10.2351/1.5059997

Non-destructive evaluation of laser welds in tailor-welded blanks using magnetic flux leakage

2003· article· en· W2897448362 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Montgomery, Peter Höök, L. Clapham, Peter Wild

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic flux leakageWeldingBlankRobustness (evolution)Magnetic fluxMechanical engineeringLeakage (economics)EngineeringNondestructive testingMaterials scienceMagnetic fieldMagnet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tailor-welded blank (TWB) industry, which uses laser welding exclusively, is facing higher demands on quality assurance, both internally to raise efficiency of production lines and externally from their customers (predominantly auto makers). This paper introduces a novel, economical approach to TWB inspection, which employs the principle of magnetic flux leakage (MFL). The development of a laboratory-based MFL inspection tool for TWBs is presented. The effects of inspection system operating parameters are quantified to allow for optimized and robust performance. The operating parameters examined include applied magnetic field strength, scanning velocity, and sampling resolution. The ability of the MFL technique to detect defects that occur in the production environment from CO2 and Nd:YAG welds is clearly demonstrated. Defects include porosity, missed weld, pinholes, mismatch, concavity, and convexity. The issues of robustness and reliability surrounding the implementation of an industrial MFL inspection tool are addressed and suitable recommendations for further development are made.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207