MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020936051 · doi:10.1115/imece2002-33572

Stamping Die Strip Optimization for Paired Parts

2002· article· en· W2020936051 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Packing Problems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStampingBlankDie (integrated circuit)STRIPSComputer scienceNesting (process)Engineering drawingAlgorithmMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In stamping, operating costs are dominated by raw material costs, which can typically reach 75% of total costs in a stamping facility. In this paper, a new algorithm is described that determines stamping strip layouts for pairs of parts such that the layout optimizes material utilization efficiency to any desired accuracy. This algorithm predicts the jointly-optimal blank orientation on the strip, relative positions of the paired blanks and the optimum width for the strip. Examples are given for nesting pairs of the same parts together, and for pairs of different parts nested together. This algorithm is ideally suited for incorporation into die design CAE systems.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.169 · 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