Hierarchical characterization procedures for dimensional metrology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a series of dimensional metrology procedures for evaluating the geometrical performance of a 3D imaging system that have either been designed or modified from existing procedures to ensure, where possible, statistical traceability of each characteristic value from the certified reference surface to the certifying laboratory. Because there are currently no internationally-accepted standards for characterizing 3D imaging systems, these procedures have been designed to avoid using characteristic values provided by the vendors of 3D imaging systems. For this paper, we focus only on characteristics related to geometric surface properties, dividing them into surface form precision and surface fit trueness. These characteristics have been selected to be familiar to operators of 3D imaging systems that use Geometrical Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T). The procedures for generating characteristic values would form the basis of either a volumetric or application-specific analysis of the characteristic profile of a 3D imaging system. We use a hierarchical approach in which each procedure builds on either certified reference values or previously-generated characteristic values. Starting from one of three classes of surface forms, we demonstrate how procedures for quantifying for flatness, roundness, angularity, diameter error, angle error, sphere-spacing error, and unidirectional and bidirectional plane-spacing error are built upon each other. We demonstrate how these procedures can be used as part of a process for characterizing the geometrical performance of a 3D imaging system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".