MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070687113 · doi:10.1115/1.1602489

Parametric Modeling of Part Family Machining Process Plans From Independently Generated Product Data Sets

2003· article· en· W2070687113 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengdong Huang, Derek Yip‐Hoi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaEngineering Research Centers
KeywordsMachiningComputer scienceParametric statisticsParametric modelProcess (computing)Industrial engineeringFeature (linguistics)Data miningProduct (mathematics)Engineering drawingEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parametric modeling has become a widely accepted mechanism for generating data set variants for product families. These data sets include geometric models and feature-based process plans. They are created by specifying values for parameters within feasible ranges that are specified as constraints in their definition. These ranges denote the extent or envelope of the product family. Increasingly, with globalization the inverse problem is becoming important: Given independently generated product data sets that on observation belong to the same product family, create a parametric model for that family. This problem is also of relevance to large companies where independent design teams may work on product variants without much collaboration only to later attempt consolidation to optimize the design of manufacturing processes and systems. In this paper we present a methodology for generating a parametric representation of the machining process plan for a part family through merging product data sets generated independently from members of the family. We assume that these data sets are feature-based machining process plans with relationships such as precedences between the machining steps for each feature captured using graphs. Since there are numerous ways in which these data sets can be merged, we formulate this as an optimization problem and solve using the A* algorithm. The parameter ranges generated by this approach will be used in the design of tools, fixtures, material handling automation and machine tools for machining the given part family.

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)0.008
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computing and Information Science in EngineeringSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207