MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963918272 · doi:10.1002/sca.20202

Small data set analysis in surface metrology: an investigation using a single point incremental forming case study

2010· article· en· W1963918272 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueScanning · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetrologySurface roughnessSurface (topology)Surface metrologyPerpendicularPoint (geometry)Surface finishSingle pointSet (abstract data type)Statistical analysisData setMaterials scienceComputer scienceEngineering drawingOpticsMathematicsGeometryStatisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSimulationProfilometerComposite materialComputer simulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method for applying statistical techniques with small data sets in surface metrology is demonstrated. This method allows for surfaces or surface-creation processes to be differentiated with as few as six measurement regions. A case study in surface roughness of single point incremental forming is used to demonstrate this method because previous work in this area has not provided quantitative statistical testing to support conclusions. The results from the case study indicate that surface roughness parameters Sz and relative length at scales less than 200 nm are greater when the roll marks on the surface are oriented perpendicular rather than parallel to the forming direction.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.179 · 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