Tool Feasibility Analysis for Fixture Assembly Planning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tool feasibility is a critical issue for generating a complete fixture assembly plan to reduce production setup time. Previous fixture design systems rarely consider the assembly tool feasibility. Current methods of assembly tool feasibility analysis mainly depend on simulation-based or user-interactive approaches, which rely on users’ judgment. This paper presents a new approach to tool feasibility analysis for fixture assembly planning. The fixture workspace around a tool is represented by a newly defined global accessibility sphere with depth of a truncated half-line. The assembly tools are modeled as five articulated parts to fully describe the tool characteristics. Tool feasibility analysis is executed to verify assembly tools’ feasibility applied on a fastener. In particular, both tool motion and tool placement constraints during tool applications are integrated into the tool geometric reasoning. The example demonstrates the fast computing speed and intuitive simulation of several assembly tools applied in fixture assembly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it