MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109526243 · doi:10.1080/13621718.2020.1833517

Weld hardness ratio and liquid metal embrittlement crack's detrimental effect on resistant spot weld strength

2020· article· en· W3109526243 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsLiquid metal embrittlementMaterials scienceSpot weldingEmbrittlementMetallurgyWeldingComposite materialMicrostructureGrain boundary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies on the detrimental effect of liquid metal embrittlement cracks on resistant spot weld joint strength have shown conflicting results. To help understand the cause of these discrepancies, this study will investigate the effect of liquid metal embrittlement cracks on weld strength under different hardness ratios between fusion zone and base metal. In this study, a novel methodology using finite element modelling and experimental testing reveals that the liquid metal embrittlement crack affects the weld strength differently under different weld's hardness ratio, i.e. under low hardness ratio, the cracks have a relatively big effect on weld strength while under high hardness ratio the cracks have relatively little effect. This work helps further understand when LME cracks are detrimental to strength.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.232 · 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