Analyse the performance characteristics of mild steel plates at varying weld parameters by using artificial intelligence approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic study shows how welding parameters (voltage, current, and gas flow rate) affect mild steel plate performance. The experimental MIG welding device changed various parameters. The experiment modifies welding parameters: welding current from 130 to 170 A, welding voltage from 23 to 27 V, and gas flow rate from 13 to 17 L/min. Welding specimens were tested for tensile strength (TS) and hardness (HBR). Weld joints get softer as the gas flow rate and welding current rise. As gas flow rate and welding current increase, experimental data shows an opposite impact. Weld tensile strength (TS) increases with gas flow rate and current but decreases with voltage. Certain instances show contradictory connections. Artificial intelligence was used to sustainably evaluate MIG welding test factor impacts. Ridge, Lasso, and Neural Network methods are less accurate than regression analysis. Tensile strength had a -0.47 monotonic correlation with welding current strength, while welding voltage had a positive correlation (+0.27). The tensile strength of welded connections is mostly affected by welding current, not gas flow rate or welding voltage. Gradient Boosting and Random Forest show improved prediction consistency, with lower error scores and higher R2 values.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".