MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171172264 · doi:10.3390/polym13121957

Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing of Polymers

2021· review· en· W3171172264 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScopusSystematic reviewComputer scienceMicroscale chemistryNanotechnologyMaterials scienceManagement scienceData scienceEngineeringMathematicsMEDLINEPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-material additive manufacturing of polymers has experienced a remarkable increase in interest over the last 20 years. This technology can rapidly design and directly fabricate three-dimensional (3D) parts with multiple materials without complicating manufacturing processes. This research aims to obtain a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the current state of research and reveal challenges and opportunities for future research in the area. To achieve the goal, this study conducts a scientometric analysis and a systematic review of the global research published from 2000 to 2021 on multi-material additive manufacturing of polymers. In the scientometric analysis, a total of 2512 journal papers from the Scopus database were analyzed by evaluating the number of publications, literature coupling, keyword co-occurrence, authorship, and countries/regions activities. By doing so, the main research frame, articles, and topics of this research field were quantitatively determined. Subsequently, an in-depth systematic review is proposed to provide insight into recent advances in multi-material additive manufacturing of polymers in the aspect of technologies and applications, respectively. From the scientometric analysis, a heavy bias was found towards studying materials in this field but also a lack of focus on developing technologies. The future trend is proposed by the systematic review and is discussed in the directions of interfacial bonding strength, printing efficiency, and microscale/nanoscale multi-material 3D printing. This study contributes by providing knowledge for practitioners and researchers to understand the state of the art of multi-material additive manufacturing of polymers and expose its research needs, which can serve both academia and industry.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
gptBibliometrics
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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