MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063313684 · doi:10.1243/0954405042418400

Wall thickness variations in single-point incremental forming

2004· article· en· W2063313684 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSingle pointPoint (geometry)Double layeredIncremental sheet formingPath (computing)Sheet metalMaterials scienceTool pathThinningMetal formingGeometryComputer scienceComposite materialComputer simulationMathematicsMetallurgySimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-point incremental forming is an innovative sheet metal forming method employing a standard computer numerical controlled (CNC) vertical milling machine and basic tooling. Traditionally the part is formed with a single-pass tool-path technique. A double-pass technique has been proposed as a way to modify the final thickness profile of steep geometry. Wall thickness profiles of a series of test cones have been measured and have shown that the formation of the characteristic thinning band present in single-pass forming can be delayed. Double-pass forming can allow the production of parts that thin to failure with single-pass techniques.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.197 · 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