MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626980287 · doi:10.20965/ijat.2011.p0269

Special Issue on High Performance Cutting and Related Manufacturing Technologies

2011· article· en· W2626980287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tojiro AOYAMA

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Automation Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Surface Polishing Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionScope (computer science)Library scienceConventionEngineeringManagementPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsComputer scienceLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 4th CIRP International Conference on High Performance Cutting had been held at the Nagaragawa Convention Center in Gifu City of Japan in October 2010. The scope of the conference was to review and discuss the visions, state of the art and innovations in the area of high performance cutting and related manufacturing technologies. This conference is originated from the CIRP Working Group in High Performance Cutting established by Professor G. Byrne in 2001. After four workshops in Europe, the 1st international conference on HPC was held in Aachen in 2004 chaired by Professor Byrne and Professor F. Klocke. The second one was held in Vancouver under the chairmanship of Professor Y. Altintas and the 3rd one was organized by Professor Byrne and Dr. O’connell in Dublin. In this conference, 144 interesting papers were presented from 19 countries. The editorial committee of IJAT selected the excellent papers presented at the conference and requested the authors to contribute manuscripts in expanded version of conference papers. As a result, 25 papers were accepted for the publication. I believe that this special issue provides the readers valuable information at the leading edge of manufacturing technologies. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to all of the authors and reviewers for their invaluable effort.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Automation TechnologySame topicAdvanced Surface Polishing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207