MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398768940 · doi:10.58286/29928

Continuous Wave Ultrasound Testing Techniques

2024· article· en· W4398768940 on OpenAlexaff
Krassimir N. Stoev, Téguewindé Sawadogo

Bibliographic record

Venuee-Journal of Nondestructive Testing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasonic sensorAcousticsContinuous waveTransducerUltrasoundTime domainSIGNAL (programming language)Ultrasonic testingComputer scienceElectronic engineeringOpticsEngineeringPhysicsComputer visionLaser

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the primary method employed for ultrasound inspection is based on sending and detecting ultrasound pulses. Typically, pulse-based methods are essentially time-domain back-reflection methods, and the time-of-flight is the main measured parameter. Recently, continuous-wave methods have been developed in the radar and the fiber-optics fields, which demonstrate significantly better spatial resolution, higher signal-to-noise ratio, and ability to detect reflecting objects at very short distances. It is proposed to use the same approach to develop continuous-wave ultrasound inspection systems. The two main differences between the proposed continuous-wave ultrasonic testing and the classical pulsed ultrasound inspection method are: (i) in the continuous-wave ultrasonic testing method, the transmitted and received signals overlap in the time domain, while in the pulsed ultrasound inspection method the transmitted and received signals are separated in the time; and (ii) in the pulsed ultrasound inspection method the most important parameter is the time delay between the transmitted and received signals, while in the continuous-wave ultrasonic testing method the most informative parameters are the frequency and phase changes in the received signal in respect to modulated transmitted signal. This allows for additional flexibility in the continuous-wave ultrasonic measurements, through control of the frequency modulation. Also, the continuous-wave ultrasonic method potentially offers improved detection range and resolution; improved signal-to-noise ratio due to better energy efficiency and easier filtering; and reduced requirements on the voltage applied to the transducer, which in turn allows the use of simplified low-cost electronics. The theoretical basis of several continuous-wave ultrasound inspection technique is explained, and their advantages and limitations are discussed. Implementation of several prototype continuous-wave ultrasound testing systems is presented. Examples of the use of the systems for non-destructive testing are described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuee-Journal of Nondestructive TestingSame topicUltrasonics and Acoustic Wave PropagationFrench-language works237,207