MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097115732 · doi:10.6028/nist.ams.100-38

A Simple Numerical Model for LPBF AM Powder Reuse and Experimental Design for Model Verification

2020· report· en· W3097115732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Das, Jordan Weaver, Shawn P. Moylan, M A. Donmez

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPowder Metallurgy Techniques and Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsMcGill University
KeywordsSimple (philosophy)ReuseComputer scienceEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powder reuse is an integral part of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing (AM). A mathematical series expression is proposed to quantify powder damage in powder reuse in LPBF AM considering various mixing ratios. A term called damage factor has been introduced and an example of an application of the series is demonstrated. Finally, a short experimental design has been suggested to verify the model.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.624
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPowder Metallurgy Techniques and MaterialsFrench-language works237,207