MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131424151 · doi:10.1109/isatp.1997.615415

Automatic planning for coordinate measuring machines

2002· article· en· W2131424151 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlannerAutomationComputer scienceTask (project management)Key (lock)Motion planningCluster analysisCoordinate-measuring machinePath (computing)Data miningArtificial intelligenceEngineering drawingReal-time computingSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineeringRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formalization of the inspection planning methodology is the first and most important step towards a complete automation of inspection planning task. The integration of the different tasks is also a key issue in the development of an automated and robust inspection planner. This paper describes a methodology for automated inspection planning. Four main task were identified and integrated: (1) accessibility analysis of the part and its measurement points, (2) clustering of measurement points, (3) sequencing of measurement points, and (4) collision-free probe path generation. This methodology has been implemented and validated with several examples.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207