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 OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey A. Packer, George S. Frater

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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

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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering JournalSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207