MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288058223 · doi:10.1088/1361-6501/ac849e

Bayesian approach to pyrometry during intercritical annealing of advanced high strength steel

2022· article· en· W4288058223 on OpenAlexafffund
Fatima K. Suleiman, Kaihsiang Lin, Roger Y. Tsang, Kyle J. Daun

Bibliographic record

VenueMeasurement Science and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInternational Zinc Association
KeywordsPyrometerEmissivityMaterials scienceAnnealing (glass)Surface finishBayesian inferenceSurface roughnessBayesian probabilityComputer scienceTemperature measurementOpticsMetallurgyComposite materialArtificial intelligencePhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Precise thermal control during intercritical annealing is essential to the production of advanced high strength steels (AHSS). Measuring the temperature of the steel strip through pyrometry requires detailed knowledge of the spectral emissivity of the steel strip, which is imperfectly known since it varies with wavelength, direction, temperature, surface roughness, and oxidation, the latter depending on alloy composition and processing conditions. This study presents a Bayesian pyrometry methodology in which temperature and spectral emissivity are described as unknown stochastic variables that are inferred simultaneously. Additional information about the spectral emissivity obtained through ex situ characterization are incorporated into the inference through maximum likelihood priors. While standard pyrometry methods provide a point estimate of surface temperature, the Bayesian framework infers the posterior probability density, which will allow galvanizers to better assess the reliability of the pyrometrically-inferred temperature.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeasurement Science and TechnologySame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207