MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912986182 · doi:10.1063/1.5055245

Thermal-wave resonant cavity signal processing

2019· article· en· W2912986182 on OpenAlexaff
Caikang Gu, Jun Shen, Jianqin Zhou, Kirk H. Michaelian, Rafał Gieleciak, Nelson G. C. Astrath, Mauro Luciano Baesso

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Scientific Instruments · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermal diffusivityAmplitudeSIGNAL (programming language)ThermalCurve fittingMaterials scienceDiffusionNoise (video)Position (finance)Standard deviationComputational physicsPhysicsOpticsThermodynamicsStatisticsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thermal-wave resonant cavity (TWRC) technique has been used for thermal diffusivity measurements by many researchers. This study aims to reduce the uncertainty associated with TWRC signal processing (curve fitting) by means of numerical simulation and experimental verification. Simulations show that the plot of signal amplitude versus cavity length can be fitted to a simplified model reported previously when the initial fitting position is at least twice the thermal-wave diffusion length (2 μg), and that the uncertainty caused by different end positions is negligible in the range of 6–10 μg. Upon consideration of the simulation results, signal-to-noise ratio, and clearly defined amplitude curve shape, fitting ranges of about 2.2–8.0 μg and 2.2–8.7 μg were chosen for the experimental data. Thermal diffusivity values (1.438 ± 0.001) × 10−7 and (1.436 ± 0.001) × 10−7 m2 s−1, respectively, were obtained for distilled water, in excellent agreement with the accepted literature value. The ratio of standard deviation to the mean value is smaller than 0.07%, one order of magnitude lower than typical results reported in the literature. Similar simulation results were obtained for air and methanol as intra-cavity samples.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Scientific InstrumentsSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207