MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898228924 · doi:10.1109/mitp.2018.053891342

Fab Labs: A Platform for Innovation and Extreme Automation

2018· article· en· W2898228924 on OpenAlexaff
Jinan Fiaidhi, Sabah Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueIT Professional · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationCollaborative softwareProduction (economics)Computer scienceOpen innovationBusinessKnowledge managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative spaces such as fab labs (fabrication labs), stemming from a desire to share knowledge and resources, offer inventors and makers the opportunity to produce almost anything. Fab labs represent manufacturing spaces that use digitally controlled machines, representing not only a possibility for decentralized production and design for individuals but also offering open production spaces for both small and large companies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0530.030

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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