MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921499278 · doi:10.1002/mdp2.56

Short review on modeling approaches for metal additive manufacturing process

2019· article· en· W2921499278 on OpenAlex
Farshid Hajializadeh, Ayhan Ince

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

VenueMaterial Design & Processing Communications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual stressDistortion (music)Process (computing)Economic shortageComputer scienceProcess modelingResidualManufacturing processManufacturing engineeringProcess engineeringWork in processEngineeringMaterials scienceAlgorithmMetallurgyOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) has been gaining considerable attention from both industrial and research communities the recent years. Main challenges in AM modeling arise from the accurate estimation of nodal temperature history, distribution of residual stresses and distortion of parts fabricated by AM and also from high computational efforts. Innovative solutions were proposed and implemented to address these issues in the AM processes of metal alloys and also modeling methods were developed to further improve efficiency and accuracy of the process. The current paper provides a short review on the thermomechanical modeling approaches and techniques developed for residual stress and distortion assessment of direct metal deposition (DMD) of AM parts. The beneficial outcomes and shortages of the recent studies in AM modeling were presented and 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.185 · 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