MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741787160 · doi:10.1080/20550340.2017.1355519

Factors affecting the properties of composites made by 4D printing (moldless composites manufacturing)

2017· article· en· W2741787160 on OpenAlexafffund
Suong V. Hoa

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Manufacturing Polymer & Composites Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywords3D printingComposite materialMaterials scienceMoldShrinkageProcess (computing)Curing (chemistry)Fused deposition modelingMechanical engineeringEngineering drawingComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D printing is the process where layers of materials are deposited to make structures of complex geometries. 4D printing is a process that combines 3D printing with the application of some activating agent in order to change the shape of the manufactured part after the process, e.g. the flat structure will change its shape to take up the desired complicated shape such as “curved” or “S” shaped. As such the 3D printing process does not have to spend time to print the intricate parts, and the process can be faster. The requirement for 4D printing is that materials with special characteristics that are responsive to an activating agent need to be used. 4D printing of composites utilizes the same concept of 4D printing, except that the materials used are long fiber composite materials. 4D printing of composites utilizes the shrinkage of the matrix resin, and the difference in coefficients of thermal contraction of layers with different fiber orientations to activate the change in shape upon curing and cooling. This behavior can be used to make parts with curved geometries without the need for a complex mold. As such manufacturing of pieces of curved shapes can be fast and economical. However, the degree of shape changing depends on the material properties, the fiber orientation, the lay up sequence and the manufacturing process. This paper presents the results obtained from a study on the effects of these aspects on the shape of the curved parts.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Manufacturing Polymer & Composites ScienceSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207