Advancements and Research in Coplanar Capacitive Sensing Techniques for Non-Destructive Testing and Evaluation: A State-of-the-Art Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to conventional non-destructive testing (NDT) and non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methodologies, including radiography, ultrasound, and eddy current analysis, the coplanar capacitive sensing technique emerges as a novel and promising avenue within the field. This paper endeavors to elucidate the efficacy of coplanar capacitive sensing, also referred to as capacitive imaging (CI), within the realm of NDT. Leveraging extant scholarly discourse, this review offers a comprehensive and methodical examination of the coplanar capacitive technique, encompassing its fundamental principles, factors influencing sensor efficacy, and diverse applications for defect identification across various NDT domains. Furthermore, this review deliberates on extant challenges and anticipates future trajectories for the technique. The manifold advantages inherent to coplanar capacitive sensing vis-à-vis traditional NDT methodologies not only afford versatility in application but also underscore its potential for pioneering advancements in forthcoming applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".