MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063917576 · doi:10.5539/mas.v3n7p52

Prediction of the coating thickness of wire coating extrusion processes using artificial neural network (ANN)

2009· article· en· W2063917576 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Recep Kozan, Bekir Çırak

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoatingArtificial neural networkMaterials scienceComposite materialBackpropagationBiological systemComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new method of modeling the nonlinear parameters of a coating systems base on neural Networks with artificial neural network neurons. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) are a new type of information processing system based on modeling the neural system of human brain. The wire coating thickness and quality depend on the wire speed, polymer viscosity, polymer melt temperature and the gap between the wire and exit end of the die. In this paper, results of experimental investigation are presented by comparing the coating quality on galvanized mild steel wire using EP 58 PVC molten is used as the coating material in a wire coating extrus?on unit at different extruder temperatures and extruder speeds. The coating thickness and quality are also discussed for different wire speeds of up to 15 m/s. A three layer back propogation artificial neutral network (ANN) model was used for the description of wire coating thickness.On comparing the experimental data, the predictions the ANN model predictions, it is found that the ANN model is capable of predicting the coating thickness. The neural network model shows how the significant parameters influencing thickness can be found. Inthis studies, a back propagation neural network model is developed to map the complex non-linear wire coating thickness between process conditions .

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)0.000
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 score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207