MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388096712 · doi:10.58286/28829

CIVA Modelling Module for Zonal Discrimination Method Part 1-Calibration Block

2023· article· en· W4388096712 on OpenAlexaff
Edward Ginzel

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Destructive Testing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)CalibrationPipeline (software)Reliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceProcess (computing)SoftwareField (mathematics)Reliability engineeringEngineeringMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2023 edition of CIVA simulation software has incorporated a module specifically designed for pipeline production weld inspections (Automated Ultrasonic Testing or AUT). Both Zonal Discrimination Method (ZDM) and Total Focussing Method (TFM) options have been included. Unlike the standard ultrasonic module, the “AUT” module has provision to run and display the outputs from multiple channels. This allows for the echo-dynamic display to be seen in a view similar to the strip-chart display commonly used with the zonal discrimination method. Having configured the delay laws to generate an acceptable calibration, CIVA tools such as the meta-model and POD modules can then be used to assess the reliability of the setup (including the efficacy of the calibration block design) for a qualification process. This paper illustrates how the calibration block design is executed for the zonal discrimination method. Results are compared to data collected for a field qualification. A subsequent paper is planned to compare the statistical analysis carried out in the field to assess the inspection reliability.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0630.019

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-Journal of Nondestructive TestingSame topicNon-Destructive Testing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207