MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389964674 · doi:10.58286/29022

Guidance on configuring volumetric targets for AUT using CIVA

2023· article· en· W4389964674 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
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Computer scienceBlock (permutation group theory)Volume (thermodynamics)CalibrationMathematicsPhysicsOperating systemGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main standards relating to AUT (Automated Ultrasonic Testing) using zonal discrimination have long had requirements to incorporate separate channels dedicated to detecting volumetric flaws. However, none of the standards specify how the beams are to be configured. The instructions are quite generic indicating that the channels are to ensure the complete volumetric examination of the weld through-thickness. Scattering flat bottom hole targets in a calibration block such that they evenly distribute in the volume is not a guarantee that the target placement provides the required complete volume coverage. This paper illustrates how the Coverage component of the CIVA AUT module helps to identify the best placement of volumetric targets in an AUT Zonal Discrimination procedure and prevents target redundancy.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.015

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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