Sculptured surface tolerance verification with design datums
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
Sculptured or free-form surfaces are widely used in many fields with extensive applications. Once such surfaces are manufactured, surface inspection compares the manufactured surfaces with the surface design specifications to verify conformance. Although significant research and development efforts have been devoted to the design and manufacturing of products consisting of partial or sole free-form surfaces, the inspection of these surfaces is still a difficult task. For many engineering applications, a free-form surface is assigned a profile tolerance with reference to design datums for assembly, functionality and other manufacturing requirements. The paper discusses developments of surface inspection techniques for profile tolerance of free-form surfaces. The concept of datum direction frame is proposed to find the transformation information that localizes measurement data to design model. The technique consists of two major steps: localization of measurement data to the design system, based on the datum reference information; and further localization based on the information from free-form surfaces. Testing examples were carried out to validate the developed techniques. The new method does not need corresponding points from the datums of the design model and measured surfaces. Therefore, it is simpler, yet more robust. It can also be used conveniently in manufacturing processes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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