MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416885177 · doi:10.37665/srbaznx55665

The Relative World of Harsh Environments

2018· article· W4416885177 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoldering and Reliability Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicNanomaterials and Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolTreatyProtocol (science)Process (computing)Flux (metallurgy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Once upon a time we cleaned virtually all circuit assemblies. That was until the discovery that certain Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) contributed to the loss of the ozone layer. The industry's most popular cleaning solvents, used to remove flux after soldering, contained CFC's. Eventually (in 1985), an international treaty known as the Montreal Protocol was signed (Figure 1), and our industry witnessed the elimination of many CFC-based cleaning solvents. Necessity being the mother of invention, alternate cleaning materials and methods were introduced. While these alternate materials and methods would prove effective, they paled in comparison to another technology introduced at the same time. This technology promised to eliminate the cleaning process altogether. This was the birth of “no-clean” flux. A flux that left behind very little residue, so little in fact, the assembly would not require cleaning. It's interesting to note that the Montreal Protocol is one of only two treaties ratified by all United Nations Member Countries.

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.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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