MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996529445 · doi:10.1080/09511920802392730

NURBS representation of estimated surfaces resulting from machining errors

2009· article· en· W1996529445 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Barari, H.A. ElMaraghy, Peter E. Orban

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Ontario Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachiningMachine toolRepresentation (politics)Process (computing)Computer Aided DesignMechanical engineeringCADComputer sciencePosition (finance)Engineering drawingJacobian matrix and determinantSurface roughnessAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new approach to model the actual machining result as a NURBS surface is presented, which explicitly expresses the geometry and topology of the final product and increases the clarity in the mathematical representation of quasistatic machining errors. Most of the available models that estimate interaction of quasistatic machining errors present the actual position of individual machined points and are unable to explicitly describe the resulting machined surface. During the machining process, the desired geometry is mapped from the ideal computer-aided design (CAD) vector space into the machine tool's vector subspaces. Using a Jacobian of the deformed geometry, it is shown that for a variety of three-axis machine tool configurations, a linear operator can be found to express this transformation. Classified error operators for all different configurations of three-axis machine tools are derived and the applicability of the developed method is illustrated by simulating the machining process using case studies. The developed model can be utilised in virtual machining and simulation of the machining process, modification of the design within a design for a manufacturing platform, and also in on-line error compensation during the machining process.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computer Integrated ManufacturingSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology TechniquesFrench-language works237,207