MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185391101 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2009-0049

PATH PLANNING FOR ROBOT-ASSISTED RAPID PROTOTYPING OF ICE STRUCTURES

2009· article· en· W2185391101 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alessandro Ossino, Eric Barnett, Jorge Angeles, Damiano Pasini, Pieter Sijpkes

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereolithographyRapid prototypingIntersection (aeronautics)Path (computing)Computer scienceRobotMotion planningMATLABCADGeometryComputer graphics (images)Engineering drawingDevelopment (topology)AlgorithmComputational scienceArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsProgramming languageAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of a path-planning algorithm for the robot-assisted rapid prototyping (RP) of ice structures is reported here. The algorithm, written in Matlab code, first imports a stereolithography (STL) file, which contains the geometry of the part to be built, and a text file containing other configuration parameters. The algorithm then finds intersection contours between evenly-spaced horizontal planes and the part; these contours define the boundaries of the areas to be filled for each layer. Each contour is then grouped with the other contours that define the same area. Subsequently, support structure contours are generated automatically from the part model; a support structure CAD model is not required. Then, part and support areas are filled by iteratively shrinking each outer contour until inner boundaries are reached.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207