MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138535992 · doi:10.3390/jmmp5010026

Condition Monitoring of Manufacturing Processes under Low Sampling Rate

2021· article· en· W3138535992 on OpenAlexafffund
Gabriel Bernard, Sofiane Achiche, Sébastien Girard, J.R.R. Mayer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKernel density estimationSampling (signal processing)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Condition monitoringIndustrial engineeringEstimationManufacturing execution systemMachine toolReal-time computingReliability engineeringManufacturing engineeringEngineeringComputer-integrated manufacturingSystems engineeringStatisticsMechanical engineeringMathematicsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manufacturing processes can be monitored for anomalies and failures just like machines, in condition monitoring and prognostic and health management. This research takes inspiration from condition monitoring and prognostic and health management techniques to develop a method for part production process monitoring. The contribution brought by this paper is an automated technique for process monitoring that works with low sampling rates of 1/3Hz, a limitation that comes from using data provided by an industrial partner and acquired from industrial manufacturing processes. The technique uses kernel density estimation functions on machine tools spindle load historical time signals for distribution estimation. It then uses this estimation to monitor the manufacturing processes for anomalies in real time. A modified version was tested by our industrial partner on a titanium part manufacturing line.

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 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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing and Materials ProcessingSame topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207