MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130589962 · doi:10.1177/0954405414531426

Design rules and applications of single-point incremental forming

2014· article· en· W2130589962 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)Point (geometry)Process (computing)Computer scienceSingle pointRapid prototypingSheet metalProcess designIncremental sheet formingEngineering design processForming processesDesign processEngineering drawingDevelopment (topology)Manufacturing engineeringIndustrial engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringWork in processSimulationOperations managementProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-point incremental forming is a sheet metal forming technique with great potential for use in prototyping and custom manufacture. While this process has undergone considerable development in recent years, designers may benefit from clear design rules to guide the process of designing for and implementing single-point incremental forming. This article presents simple design guidelines that translate forming limits into simple design constraints. A method of developing intermediate models for multi-pass forming is also documented. To demonstrate the utility of such simple design rules, examples of components that were made using this process are presented as case studies.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.191 · 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