MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416885169 · doi:10.37665/ppykpzo82456

Evaluating the Manufacturability and Operational Costs for New Conformal Coating Processes

2008· article· W4416885169 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Keeping

Bibliographic record

VenuePan Pacific Symposium · 2008
Typearticle
Language
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMaterial Selection and Properties
Canadian institutionsHain Celestial (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDesign for manufacturabilityConformal coatingCoatingConformal mapProcess (computing)Electronics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT There are test vehicles to address SMT assembly process development and optimization, but none to address Conformal Coating operations. To fill this gap, Celestica has designed the “CC-Tango” test vehicle. The continued migration in the electronics industry to higher density components and smaller footprint layouts makes the Conformal Coating process more challenging in terms of achieving acceptable first pass process yields and cycle times that are cost effective. The “CC-Tango” test vehicle can be used to assess the assembly processes for cleaning, masking and inspection/rework requirements and their effect on Conformal Coating applications. These are some of the main features that require further investigation for manufacturability optimization. This information is critical for Aerospace, Military, Industrial customers and any other products that may be exposed to harsh environmental conditions with either lead free or mixed conditions requiring Conformal Coating. This paper describes how we have used this test vehicle to evaluate Conformal Coating materials, compare application equipment along with providing site enablement and optimization methods for the conversion to high reliability/minimized cost Conformal Coating processes. Seven assembly process variables were investigated. The three most critical variables were identified and their impacts will be discussed. Practical manufacturing techniques that maximize production “Return on Invested Capital” ROIC will also be discussed. IPC-CC-830 [1] and ASTM D3359 [2] standards were used to execute the test plan.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePan Pacific SymposiumSame topicMaterial Selection and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207