MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296950112

Quarterly Management Document – FY22, 3rd Quarter, Multi-pass Hybrid Laser Arc Welding of Alloy 740H

2022· other· en· W4296950112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)AlloyArc (geometry)WeldingLaserMetallurgyMaterials scienceOpticsEngineeringMechanical engineeringHistoryPhysicsArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 3rd quarter of FY22, progress was made on modeling and simulation of deep penetration laser welding of Alloy 740H. Advances in the modeling of residual stress development arising from the calculated temperature field of the solidifying weld pool were made to understand the development of solidification cracking. Additionally, preliminary modeling of the temperature field within the weld pool of a wobbling laser heat source was performed. The maximum temperature of the weld pool was found to vary with time. These result will allow modeling of deep penetration laser welding using a wobbling laser to mitigate weld defects and cracking. Also, additional characterization of hybrid laser arc welds indicated that these welds were not defect-free as originally thought and the current HLA welds would not be acceptable under criteria outlined in the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section IX. Therefore, additional welding trails with variation of the welding parameters and HLA welding configurations are required to produce welds acceptable under the Section IX criteria. It was shown that considerable reduction of HLAW defects had been achieved with each successive welding campaign. Therefore additional variation of HLAW parameters may still yield the desired defect-free welds, however, options for alternate HLAW configurations as well as plate preheating are outlined as contingency plans to obtain suitable welds. These additional (unplanned) HLAW trial may prevent subsequent milestones from being achieved within the original budget.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0920.044

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)Same topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207