MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213452458 · doi:10.1088/2631-7990/ac57c8

Comparative analysis of single- and multiple-frequency thermal wave radar imaging inspection of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)

2022· article· en· W4213452458 on OpenAlexaff
Lishuai Liu, Andreas Mandelis, Alexander Melnikov, Liming Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Extreme Manufacturing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermographyFibre-reinforced plasticMaterials scienceRadarNondestructive testingChirpGlass fiberAcousticsOpticsBandwidth (computing)Computer scienceInfraredComposite materialTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Active infrared thermography has gained increasing popularity for nondestructive testing and evaluation in various industrial fields, especially for composite structures. In this regard, thermal wave radar (TWR) imaging is recognized as the next-generation active thermography technology to obtain great resolution and depth range over the inspected objects. A critical aspect concerns the optimal test parameter selection to guarantee reliable quality assurance required for industrial products. In this work, single- and multiple-frequency TWR was investigated in a quantitative manner with the goal of optimizing the detection parameters in terms of probing range and lateral and depth resolution. The effects of test parameters, including sampling frequency, modulation frequency, chirp duration, chirp bandwidth, etc, were investigated in detail through experiments on a glass fiber reinforced polymer specimen with multi-scale diameter-to-depth ratio defects. This paper aims to help yield a better understanding of the physical mechanism behind TWR and propose a workable scheme for testing parameter selection in practical applications.

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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Extreme ManufacturingSame topicThermography and Photoacoustic TechniquesFrench-language works237,207