MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138391560 · doi:10.3390/app11093804

Numerical Simulation and Experimental Study of Capacitive Imaging Technique as a Nondestructive Testing Method

2021· article· en· W3138391560 on OpenAlexaff
Farima Abdollahi-Mamoudan, Sébastien Savard, Tobin Filleter, Clemente Ibarra‐Castanedo, Xavier Maldague

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical and Bioimpedance Tomography
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of New BrunswickUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapacitive sensingMaterials scienceFinite element methodSample (material)DielectricAcousticsElectronic engineeringComputer scienceOptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was recently demonstrated that a coplanar capacitive sensor could be applied to the evaluation of materials without the disadvantages associated with the other techniques. This technique effectively detects changes in the dielectric properties of the materials due to, for instance, imperfections or variations in the internal structure, by moving a set of simple electrodes on the surface of the specimen. An AC voltage is applied to one or more electrodes and signals are detected by others. This is a promising inspection method for imaging the interior structure of the numerous materials, without the necessity to be in contact with the surface of the sample. In this paper, finite element (FE) modeling was employed to simulate the electric field distribution from a coplanar capacitive sensor and the way it interacts with a nonconducting sample. Physical experiments with a prototype capacitive sensor were also performed on a Plexiglas sample with subsurface defects, to assess the imaging performance of the sensor. A good qualitative agreement was observed between the numerical simulation and experimental result.

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)0.000
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicElectrical and Bioimpedance TomographyFrench-language works237,207