MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394778050 · doi:10.62913/engj.v42i1.840

Recommended Effective Throat Sizes for Flare Groove Welds to HSS

2005· article· en· W4394778050 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsSteacie Institute for Molecular SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institute of Steel Construction
KeywordsWeldingBevelFlareGroove (engineering)Structural engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringEngineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental research project has been undertaken to investigate the geometric properties, and in particular the effective throat size, of flare bevel and flare-V partial joint penetration groove welds at the corners of Hollow Structural Sections (HSS). HSS-to-plate (flare bevel) and HSS-to-HSS (flare-V) single-pass welds were carefully performed to Welding Procedure Specifications agreed within a Project Oversight Committee, using ASTM A500 tubing, then cross-sectioned after inspection to produce 180 test welds. Parameters included three HSS sizes (with wall thicknesses ranging from 3/16 in. to 3/8 in.), four welding processes (FCAW-G, FCAW-S, GMAW and SMAW) and four welding positions (flat, horizontal, vertical and overhead). All weld cross-sections were polished and etched, then had their profiles digitally recorded and measured. An analysis of the resulting data has shown that the current pre-qualified effective throat sizes for these two weld types, in AWS D1.1/D1.1M:2004, can be made more liberal for most weld processes.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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