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 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
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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.070
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