MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981167874 · doi:10.1002/pen.20198

Runner balancing by a direct genetic optimization of shrinkage

2004· article· en· W1981167874 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

VenuePolymer Engineering and Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsShrinkageProduct (mathematics)Genetic algorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Materials scienceMathematicsComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The proposed approach to the runner‐balancing problem evaluates differences in shrinkage among the cavities and uses this direct measure of product quality to balance runner systems instead of the indirect methods traditionally used. The runner‐balancing problem was characterized by multiple objectives, which consider both cost and product quality. The resulting multi‐objective optimization problem was solved with a multi‐objective genetic algorithm. Runner‐balancing optimizations varied the diameters and lengths of the runners and the processing conditions. The results suggest that balanced runner systems, which exhibit large differences in cavity pressure profiles, can have lower product costs than systems characterized by similar fill times and cavity pressure profiles. The optimization of the secondary runner lengths and processing conditions also reduced costs significantly. Polym. Eng. Sci. 44:1949–1959, 2004. © 2004 Society of Plastics Engineers.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.166 · 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