MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083775327 · doi:10.32393/csme.2020.1225

Effect in Thermal Conductivity due to Compaction of Powdered Stainless-steel 316L used in Additive Manufacturing

2020· article· en· W3083775327 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

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompactionMaterials scienceThermal conductivityMetallurgyThermalComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Metallic and plastic powders have been used in additive manufacturing for many years. Unfortunately, in processes such as powder bed fusion, the mechanical properties of the parts are different than using traditional machining methods. Some of the deficits of printed parts are directly attributed to the layer by layer process, where the density of the printed parts is overall lower because of the voids generated between the powder particles. Such voids can be generated by insufficient material and/or melting energy. In the previous years, several parametric studies in 3d printing processes have been performed. At this moment, experimental studies using powders are limited because its complexity. The presented research studied on the different thermal distribution of the powder particles under different arrangements in order to improve their thermal conductivity. Our experiments show that compacting the powder helped to reduce the gradients in temperature under certain temperatures more than 50%.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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