MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556469306 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2008-0035

MULTI-PARAMETER ANN MODEL FOR FLAT-END MILLING

2008· article· en· W2556469306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hazim El Mounayri, M. Affan Badar, Gustavo A. Rengifo

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkSurface roughnessMachiningProcess (computing)End millingFactorial experimentSurface finishDesign of experimentsSet (abstract data type)Response surface methodologyMechanical engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMachine learningMaterials scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The quality, productivity and safety of machining can be significantly improved through the optimization of cutting conditions. The first step in achieving such an objective is the development of accurate and reliable models for predicting the critical process parameters. In this paper, an innovative Artificial Neural Network (ANN) model that predicts both cutting force and surface roughness in end milling is developed and validated. A set of five input variables is selected to represent the machining conditions while twelve quantities representing two key process parameters, namely, cutting force and surface roughness, form the variables of the network output. Full factorial design of experiments is used to generate data for both training and validation. Successful training of the neural network is demonstrated through comparison of simulated and experimental results for four different output variables, namely cutting force, surface roughness, feed marks, and tooth passing frequency. The predictive ability of the model is verified experimentally by comparing simulated output variables with their experimental counterparts. A good agreement is observed.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207