MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890661285 · doi:10.3390/jmmp2030060

Machine Tool Volumetric Error Features Extraction and Classification Using Principal Component Analysis and K-Means

2018· article· en· W2890661285 on OpenAlexafffund
Kanglin Xing, J.R.R. Mayer, Sofiane Achiche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePattern recognition (psychology)Feature extractionEncoderMachine toolFeature (linguistics)Fault (geology)Component (thermodynamics)Data miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volumetric errors (VE) are related to the machine tool accuracy state. Extracting features from the complex VE data provides with a means to characterize this data. VE feature classification can reveal the machine tool accuracy states. This paper presents a study on how to use principal component analysis (PCA) to extract the features of VE and how to use the K-means method for machine tool accuracy state classification. The proposed data processing methods have been tested with the VE data acquired from a five-axis machine tool with different states of malfunction. The results indicate that the PCA and K-means are capable of extracting the VE feature information and classifying the fault states including the C axis encoder fault, uncalibrated C axis encoder fault, and pallet location fault from the machine tool normal states. This research provides a new way for VE features extraction and classification.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.278
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207