MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382401070 · doi:10.58286/28286

FMC/TFM Technique Design Using the FMC Beamset in BeamTool

2023· article· en· W4382401070 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwareComputer scienceSensitivity (control systems)AmplitudeOpticsEngineeringElectronic engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eclipse Scientific’s BeamTool software has supported Full Matrix Capture/Total Focusing Method (FMC/TFM) technique design through the FMC Beamset since version 9.0 (released in 2017). With the release of BeamTool 10.1, however, the FMC Beamset now includes more sophisticated tooling to help users design FMC/TFM based inspection techniques – these include: Sensitivity, Focal Area and Resolution maps which together allow users to quickly assess how similar reflectors will be imaged (amplitude, shape, size) throughout the chosen region of interest. For each of these focal metrics, the absolute minimum and maximum values are provided along with other helpful derived quantities (amplitude fidelity, maximum sensitivity difference) which allows the influence of probe and wedge parameters to be compared directly. This document details what these new focal metrics are as well as how to use them to optimize FMC/TFM based techniques for various common applications. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the principles of FMC/TFM and the BeamTool software.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.215 · 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