MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899604408 · doi:10.1115/1.4041913

Challenges and Status on Design and Computation for Emerging Additive Manufacturing Technologies

2018· article· en· W2899604408 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

VenueJournal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersDirectorate for Engineering
KeywordsComputer scienceProduct designSystems engineeringFunction (biology)Domain (mathematical analysis)Product (mathematics)Manufacturing engineeringNew product developmentComputer Aided DesignEmerging technologiesScale (ratio)Industrial engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The revolution of additive manufacturing (AM) has led to many opportunities in fabricating complex and novel products. The increase of printable materials and the emergence of novel fabrication processes continuously expand the possibility of engineering systems in which product components are no longer limited to be single material, single scale, or single function. In fact, a paradigm shift is taking place in industry from geometry-centered usage to supporting functional demands. Consequently, engineers are expected to resolve a wide range of complex and difficult problems related to functional design. Although a higher degree of design freedom beyond geometry has been enabled by AM, there are only very few computational design approaches in this new AM-enabled domain to design objects with tailored properties and functions. The objectives of this review paper are to provide an overview of recent additive manufacturing developments and current computer-aided design methodologies that can be applied to multimaterial, multiscale, multiform, and multifunctional AM technologies. The difficulties encountered in the computational design approaches are summarized and the future development needs are emphasized. In the paper, some present applications and future trends related to additive manufacturing technologies are also discussed.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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