MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128478419 · doi:10.37665/smhejgq13230

Reflow Cycle via Reliability Impact

2025· article· W7128478419 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Furlong, Joe Smetana, Tony Senese, Mei-Ming Khaw, Crystal E. Vanderpan

Bibliographic record

VenueSMTA International · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Dwell timePrinted circuit boardInterconnectionStress (linguistics)Circuit reliabilityWork (physics)Stress testing (software)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This paper investigates the impact of reflow cycle parameters on via reliability in printed circuit boards (PCBs). The primary objective was to determine how variations in ramp rate, peak temperature, dwell time, and soak time influence the integrity and reliability of plated through hole (PTH) vias. Using a 20-layer commonly used high Tg FR4 test board with 10 mil through holes, a series of typical assembly reflow profiles based on SAC 305 solder were tested using Interconnect Stress Testing (IST)[8]. Key findings indicate that peak temperature and time near peak temperature are the most significant factors affecting via reliability. The paper also highlights the importance of interactions between variables, particularly the three-way interaction of peak temperature, time near peak, and soak time. The results demonstrate that while ramp rate alone is not statistically significant, its interactions with other variables are crucial. All work was conducted through the HDP User Group International Consortium under the project titled Reflow Cycle Via Reliability Impact, facilitated by Jack Tan. All raw data and full versions of the project documents are available to member companies ( www.hdpusergroup.org ).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSMTA InternationalSame topicElectronic Packaging and Soldering TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207