MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034239315 · doi:10.4271/2013-01-2172

Aerospace Panels Fixtureless Inspection Methods with Restraining Force Requirements; A Technology Review

2013· review· en· W2034239315 on OpenAlexaff
Gad N. Abenhaim, Antoine Tahan, Alain Desrochers, Jean‐François Lalonde

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)École de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceFixtureFinite element methodComputer scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringProcess (computing)Aerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Aerospace panels are commonly restrained on complex inspection fixture jigs during the measurement process. Forces used to restrain the part are also monitored because of the part functional requirements. Given the difficulties in measuring these types of parts, this paper reviews the available fixtureless inspection methods with a focus on the challenges of their implementation and their aptitude to be used to estimate the part profile and the necessary restraining forces of an aerospace panel. To perform this investigation, finite element analysis is used to predict the constrained shape of four (4) simulated free state aerospace panel, with two different type of boundary condition, in five scenarios. From those analyses, the importance and limits of current finite element boundary setting method embedded in fixtureless inspection methods for nonrigid parts are highlighted.</div></div>

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.298 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology TechniquesFrench-language works237,207