MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2330001583 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.088

Towards a Sustainable Disassembly/Dismantling in Aerospace Industry

2016· article· en· W2330001583 on OpenAlexaff
Mahdi Sabaghi, Yongliang Cai, Christian Mascle, Pierre Baptiste

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceSustainabilityProcess (computing)Work (physics)Quality (philosophy)Manufacturing engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality of recycled material in a recycling process is actively influenced by an appropriate disassembly/dismantling strategy. In recycling the carcass of the aircraft, it is suitable to separate and classify different aluminum grades into their main alloys family before sending them to recycling center. However, due to complexity in the aircraft structure, fully disassembly/dismantling or fully shredding the aircraft is not economically or environmentally viable, respectively. For this reason, this work discusses eight different disassembly/dismantling strategies that have been done on a real Bombardier Regional Jet aircraft. The study proposes an approach to assess the sustainability influence of these strategies, as an important parameter that should be considered to select the most suitable strategy. This concept can be improved in order to be used in aerospace industry as an accurate method that allows to take the best decision depending on the concurrent situation.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia CIRPSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207