MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767184710 · doi:10.1002/sia.6332

Analysis of polymer parts: buried problems

2017· article· en· W2767184710 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSurface and Interface Analysis · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInjection Molding Process and Properties
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycarbonateAcrylonitrile butadiene styrenePolymerMaterials scienceAutomotive industryComposite materialAlloyForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The analysis of manufactured parts for the source of defects is challenging as these defects are often buried below the surface. An example of this type of problem is a defect that occurs in a molded and multilayered painted part. The automotive industry continues to increase the amount of plastics used in their vehicles in order to reduce weight and increase fuel efficiencies. The polymers are usually specified based on their mechanical properties as it is these properties that will dictate the effectiveness of the polymer in replacing a metal part. The paintability of the surface is often a secondary consideration. The polymer alloy of polycarbonate and acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene is used in some interior and exterior car components. This polymer alloy has a number of mechanical properties that make it attractive for use in automotive parts, however, variations in its domain structure can have an effect on its properties. The process of identifying the root cause of a defect occurring on a painted molded polycarbonate/acrylonitrile/butadiene/styrene part will be examined. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.235 · 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