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 OpenAlexaff
Farshid Hajializadeh, Ayhan Ince

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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

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
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterial Design & Processing CommunicationsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207