MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158787990 · doi:10.1109/nafips.2004.1337439

Fuzzy modeling and prediction of cylindricity error in BTA deep hole boring process

2004· article· en· W2158787990 on OpenAlexaff
Hussien Al-Wedyan, Kudret Demirli, Rama Bhat

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)Operator (biology)Fuzzy logicDrillingMode (computer interface)Artificial intelligenceAlgorithmMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, first order Sugeno models are proposed to model the relationship between the different cutting parameters and the resulting cylindricity error. This gives the machine operator the opportunity to predict cylindricity for a given set of cutting parameters. Hence, the best parameters can be picked to achieve the best cylindricity. A second model shows that the cutting parameters should vary while drilling in order to reduce the whirling mode. As the amplitude of whirling is reduced, this leads to better cylindricity.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04.Same topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207