MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317794978 · doi:10.1109/tmag.2023.3238767

A Numerical Twin Model for the Coupled Field Analysis of TEAM Workshop Problem 36

2023· article· en· W4317794978 on OpenAlexaff
Paolo Di Barba, Maria Evelina Mognaschi, Anna Maria Cavazzini, M. Ciofani, Fabrizio Dughiero, Michele Forzan, Marta Lazzarin, A. Marconi, David A. Lowther, J.K. Sykulski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Magnetics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromagnetic coilFinite element methodComputer scienceInductorInverse problemConvolutional neural networkElectromagnetic fieldLinearityThermal analysisMagnetic fieldPermeability (electromagnetism)Electromagnetic inductionMagnetoAlgorithmMechanical engineeringThermalElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematical analysisPhysicsVoltageMathematicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical twin model for the magneto-thermal analysis of an induction heating device is proposed. The non-linearity of magnetic permeability against temperature—which characterizes the workpiece—is captured by the model, while the use of a convolutional neural network (CNN), trained by a number of finite-element (FE) analyses, makes it possible to solve the following inverse problem: given a temperature map in the workpiece section, identify current and relevant frequency in the inductor coil, as well as the time instant at which the map refers to. The testing electromagnetic analysis method (TEAM) problem 36 is considered as the case study.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on MagneticsSame topicWelding Techniques and Residual StressesFrench-language works237,207