MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156141867 · doi:10.4236/ojcm.2021.112004

A Mini-Review and Perspective on Current Best Practice and Emerging Industry 4.0 Methods for Risk Reduction in Advanced Composites Manufacturing

2021· article· en· W3156141867 on OpenAlexaff
Bryn Crawford, Hamid Khayyam, Abbas S. Milani

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Journal of Composite Materials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerospaceInterpretabilityContext (archaeology)Risk analysis (engineering)Reduction (mathematics)ManufacturingComputer scienceManufacturing engineeringEngineeringBusinessArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The manufacturing of composite structures is a highly complex task with inevitable risks, particularly associated with aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty of both the materials and processes, as well as the need for in-situ decision-making to mitigate defects during manufacturing. In the context of aerospace composites production in particular, there is a heightened impetus to address and reduce this risk. Current qualification and substantiation frameworks within the aerospace industry define tractable methods for risk reduction. In parallel, Industry 4.0 is an emerging set of technologies and tools that can enable better decision-making towards risk reduction, supported by data-driven models. It offers new paradigms for manufacturers, by virtue of enabling in-situ decisions for optimizing the process as a dynamic system. However, the static nature of current (pre-Industry 4.0) best-practice frameworks may be viewed as at odds with this emerging novel approach. In addition, many of the predictive tools leveraged in an Industry 4.0 system are black-box in nature, which presents other concerns of tractability, interpretability and ultimately risk. This article presents a perspective on the current state-of-the-art in the aerospace composites industry focusing on risk reduction in the autoclave processing, as an example system, while reviewing current trends and needs towards a Composites 4.0 future.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Journal of Composite MaterialsSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207