MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409499241 · doi:10.5006/s2009-00024

Detection of Surface Contamination During a Scheduled Inspection and Repair Investigation

2009· article· en· W4409499241 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lyn M. Kearns, M. Janssen, Jean-Luc Coté

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Department of National Defence (DND) in Canada has implemented a revised maintenance program for aircraft weapon systems whose goal is to ensure that essential maintenance is accomplished and to assure the continued airworthiness of aeronautical products during in-service operation. The program especially affects legacy aircraft. A case study is being presented where an adhesion failure was detected during a scheduled inspection. After carrying out numerous wet adhesion tests which failed, followed by water break tests on the failed areas, surface contamination prior to organic coating application was suspected. Typical laboratory techniques could not detect any contamination. Use of state-of-the-art Time of Flight – Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (ToF-SIMS) with primary ion source, Bi3+, was needed to determine the presence of surface contamination as low as a monolayer. The contamination was positively identified as a cationic surfactant that is commonly used in aircraft cleaners and conversion coating solutions. Further analyses using Scanning Electron Microscopy – Energy Dispersive X-ray Analyses (SEM-EDX), Thermal Gravimetric Analyses (TGA), Differenctial Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) and Dynamic Mechanical Analyses (DMA) were used to ensure the bulk integrity of the failed coatings.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect DetectionFrench-language works237,207