MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2774333069

3D Rapid Prototyping for Synchrotron Application

2007· article· en· W2774333069 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher H. Ryan, Thomasz W. Wysokinski, Dean Chapman, Małgorzata Korbas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Light Source (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRapid prototyping3D printingComputer scienceSoftwareProcess (computing)Computer Aided DesignTurnaround timeCADSystems engineeringEngineering drawingEngineeringMechanical engineeringOperating system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Biomedical Imaging and Therapy (BMIT) Beamlines at the Canadian Light Source (CLS) is designed for the purpose of imaging and radiation therapy research both with animals ranging from mice to horses and humans. Being the only beamline in the world with this capacity, BMIT will be continuously encountering unique problems requiring innovative solutions. 3D rapid prototyping has proven to be one of the possible solutions. There are a variety of applications for 3D rapid prototyping (RP) in the Synchrotron environment. At BMIT, rapid prototyping will be the primary concentration for fabrication of unique and difficultly machined precision instruments and animal restraints. The designing and manufacturing process of such unique components includes: 1. Development of 3D model of part which could include an x-ray CT or MRI scan of animal. 2. Conversion of model or scanned data to CAD formats. 3. Fabrication of unique component using 3D printer. Conventional prototyping techniques are expensive, time consuming and dated. With late advancements in 3D printing, scanning, and CAD software, the task of 3D-RP is becoming more readily available, cost effective, accurate and provides quick turnaround. This paper describes the current and future technologies of each process, which will be implemented at the BMIT beamlines to ensure maximum resolution image quality, while improving efficiency and reducing stress on the animals.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.007

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207