MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944609927 · doi:10.1080/02670836.2019.1596370

Overview of non-destructive evaluation techniques for metal-based additive manufacturing

2019· article· en· W2944609927 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

VenueMaterials Science and Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Service (business)Manufacturing engineeringOrder (exchange)Materials scienceComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three-dimensional printing/digital or additive manufacturing is an area that is taking off with considerable rapidity and magnitude. In the same time, non-destructive evaluation (NDE) is playing an important role in the acceptance of additively manufactured parts, in order to provide the required confidence in the quality of the part and its expected safety and performance while in service. This article represents a summary addressing the subject of applicable NDE techniques to detect manufacturing anomalies and service-induced flaws. The topic is relatively new, attracting much research attention and funding, while in the meantime manufacturing processes are continuously improving. The number of publications covering additive manufacturing is increasing exponentially, and everyday new articles, conferences, and workshops are bringing out new information.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.256 · 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