MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108173590 · doi:10.1201/9781003076155-105

Infrared Thermography as a Rapid NDI Tool for Advanced Composite Materials

2020· book-chapter· en· W3108173590 on OpenAlexaff
Zouheir Fawaz, Cecil Armstrong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermographyComposite numberInfraredMaterials scienceRemote sensingComposite materialGeologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thermography has proven to be very useful as a Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI) method on composite materials. Using a variety of samples from different materials and of different geometric configurations, tests were performed to locate and quantify known defects and damage in those samples. The types of defects inspected ranged from, high and low velocity impact damage, to air pockets and foreign objects introduced inside the samples during the preparation process. The inspection results proved that such varying types of defects in composite materials could be easily and straightforwardly identified using thermography. One of the conclusions reached is that the infrared (IR) camera used to obtain the thermographic images needs to have a high frame capture rate and resolution in order to accurately detect all thermal information produced during the tests. In addition, the rate at which the sample is heated was observed to have a pronounced effect on the results. Different configurations of lighting were tried in order to increase the rate at which the samples were heated and to provide uniform heating across the surface of the samples. Uniform heating was essential to producing clear and sharp images.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.010

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207