MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390979279 · doi:10.1177/13621718231222844

Half-sectioned spot weld parameter optimisation for liquid metal embrittlement analysis in advanced high-strength steels

2024· article· en· W4390979279 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

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Welding Techniques Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceLiquid metal embrittlementWeldingSpot weldingMetallurgyEmbrittlementCrackingHeat-affected zoneElectric resistance weldingLiquid metalComposite materialMicrostructureGrain boundary

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Half-section welding has been proposed as a method to observe nugget growth throughout the resistance spot welding process. Some past studies used this technique as an in-situ monitoring approach to analyse the cracking behaviour during welding. However, there is a lack of understanding regarding the half-sectioned welding parameters, which critically impacts the liquid metal embrittlement cracking index. This study optimised half-sectioned welding parameters for liquid metal embrittlement crack analysis by developing process maps that compare the half-sectioned and full-section processes. It was found that the liquid metal embrittlement crack located at the weld shoulder can correlate to the temperature gradient in the heat-affected zone. This study proposes half-sectioned welding as a viable technique for liquid metal embrittlement analysis.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.253 · 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