MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005316720 · doi:10.1115/detc2009-86395

Validation and Identification of Optimal Fixturing Scheme Using VR

2009· article· en· W2005316720 on OpenAlexaff
Santosh Kumar Thukaram, Qingjin Peng, Subramaniam Balikrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 8: 14th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 6th Symposium on International Design and Design Education; 21st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Parts A and B · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixtureScheme (mathematics)Process (computing)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Identification (biology)Conceptual designVirtual realityVariety (cybernetics)Test fixtureManufacturing engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fixtures are important components in manufacturing systems. Fixturing changes because of manufacturing changing from mass production to production in smaller batches and higher variety of products. Computer-aided fixture design (CAFD) systems automate the process of fixture design and verification. Research work has mainly concentrated either on automating the CAFD process or on making it user-friendly and interactive. However a final fixturing scheme may not be optimal because different users may need fixtures to meet different requirements, this paper proposes a conceptual module for the fixture validation to compare, test and analyze various combinations of fixturing elements. A fixture validation model is developed using a virtual reality (VR) system to support the idea presented in this paper.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 8: 14th Design for Manufacturing and the Life Cycle Conference; 6th Symposium on International Design and Design Education; 21st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Parts A and BSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207