MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963425566 · doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2019.06.150

Effect of initial surface topography during laser polishing process: Statistical analysis

2019· article· en· W2963425566 on OpenAlexafffund
Evgueni V. Bordatchev, Srdjan Cvijanovic, O. Remus Tutunea‐Fatan

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Manufacturing · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolishingSurface roughnessSurface (topology)SmoothingSurface finishMaterials scienceSurface finishingLaserStatistical analysisOpticsMechanical engineeringMetallurgyComposite materialGeometryMathematicsEngineeringPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface finish is one of the most important quality characteristics of fabricated components. Laser polishing (LP) is one of the advanced manufacturing surface finishing techniques that has been recently developed and successfully employed for improving surface quality without deteriorating the overall structural form through surface smoothing by melting and redistributing a thin layer of molten material. This paper advances the statistical analysis of the LP process emphasizing aspects of the effect of the initial surface topography. Flat and ground initial surfaces are used for comparative statistical analysis of initial and polished profiles obtained experimentally. Their profile geometries and surface quality characteristics, such as, roughness, were compared and analyzed. In addition, LP process was experimentally investigated as a thermodynamic operator represented by a transfer function and it was examined by means of a coherence function.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.239
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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia ManufacturingSame topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207