MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810853631 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2018.03.201

Benchmarking of Pattern Recognition Techniques for Online Tool Wear Detection

2018· article· en· W2810853631 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBenchmarkingLinear discriminant analysisRobustness (evolution)Pattern recognition (psychology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceReliability (semiconductor)Machine learningTool wearData miningEngineeringMachining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pattern recognition techniques have been implemented in real-time tool condition monitoring (TCM) systems to improve their robustness and reliability. The performance and accuracy of these techniques vary depending on their algorithm and the dataset properties. This research benchmarks six pattern recognition techniques to optimize the learning effort, classification accuracy and calculation time for TCM in milling of Al-Alloys using spindle-drive feedback. The techniques were tested using a generalized dataset where the tool condition has a dominant effect over the cutting conditions. The analysis demonstrated the high capability of the linear discriminant analysis technique compared to other techniques.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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