MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224452860 · doi:10.1007/s11340-022-00849-3

Interlaboratory Reproducibility of Contour Method Data in a High Strength Aluminum Alloy

2022· article· en· W4224452860 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher R. D’Elia, Pierpaolo Carlone, Joshua Wade Dyer, Jean-Benoît Lévesque, Jeferson Araújo de Oliveira, Michael B. Prime, M.J. Roy, Thomas J. Spradlin, R. Stilwell, Fausto Tucci, Anastasia Vasileiou, B. T. Watanable, Michael R. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsReproducibilityStandard deviationResidual stressMaterials scienceResidualMathematicsStatisticsComposite materialAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The contour method for residual stress measurement has seen significant development, but an experimental reproducibility study utilizing physical samples has not been published. Objective A double-blind reproducibly study is reported, having scope beginning with EDM cutting and ending with residual stress calculation. Methods A reinforced I-beam sample geometry is identified for its unique residual stress profile when extracted from residual stress bearing quenched aluminum bar (7050-T74). Contour measurements are prescribed on a midplane of symmetry with dimensions 24.0 mm by 50.0 mm. Fourteen identically prepared samples are fabricated from a single long bar with well characterized and uniform residual stress. Five samples throughout the bar are identified for planning measurements to validate sample uniformity and overall suitability of the residual stress field. The planning measurements employ a range of techniques: contour method, neutron diffraction, and hole-drilling. Eight samples are distributed to an international group of participants to execute their standard measurement practice. A double-blind process is followed to provide anonymity. Results Results are provided by eight participants: six being self-similar and two being quite different, the latter set aside as outliers. An average residual stress field is established from non-outlying results and the spatial distribution of reproducibility standard deviation is determined. The average stress field ranges from -60 to 70 MPa and the reproducibility standard deviation averages 8.1 MPa on the measurement plane. The average reproducibility standard deviation is about 3 × larger for points within 1.0 mm of plane boundaries (17.6 MPa) than for the remaining points (6.1 MPa). Conclusions Reproducibility standard deviation (among different labs) for contour method residual stress measurement is found to be very similar to repeatability standard deviation (in a single lab) reported in prior work. The reproducibility observed here, for the entire measurement process, is also similar to that found in a prior reproducibility study limited to contour method data analysis.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental MechanicsSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207