MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078716434 · doi:10.1177/1077546307074225

Adaptive Modeling of Laser Powder Deposition Process for Control and Monitoring Application

2007· article· en· W2078716434 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

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Deposition (geology)Laser power scalingLaserProcess controlPower (physics)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Adaptive controlMaterials scienceControl (management)OpticsArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The laser powder deposition (LPD) process is an advanced material processing technique with many applications. Despite this fact, reliable and accurate control schemes have not yet been fully developed for the process. In this paper, identification of the LPD process is examined to find a more accurate model to predict and control the height of clad in real time. The model is adaptive single input—single output (SISO) and its structure is very similar to the Hammerstein model when the effective power (a function of laser power and velocity) is selected as the input and the clad height as the output. Weighted extended recursive least square (WERLS) is adopted to simultaneously estimate the model parameters using experimental data. Comparison of the results shows that this method can be used very efficiently in control of laser powder deposition process.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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