MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194034373 · doi:10.2217/3dp-2021-0005

Evaluation of 3D-Printer Settings for Producing Personal Protective Equipment

2021· article· en· W3194034373 on OpenAlexafffund
Carson Studders, Ian S. Fraser, Joshua W. Giles, Stephanie M. Willerth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of 3D Printing in Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersTechnation CanadaCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsInfillMaterials scienceUltimate tensile strengthEconomic shortageShell (structure)ShieldComposite materialLine (geometry)3D printingStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsGeologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: COVID-19 resulted in a shortage of personal protective equipment. Community members united to 3D-print face shield headbands to support local healthcare workers. This study examined factors altering print time and strength. Materials & methods: Combinations of infill density (50%, 100%), shell thickness (0.8, 1.2 mm), line width (0.2 mm, 0.4 mm), and layer height (0.1 mm, 0.2 mm) were evaluated through tensile testing, finite element analysis, and printing time. Results: Strength increased with increased infill (p < 0.001) and shell thickness (p < 0.001). Layer height had no effect on strength. Increasing line width increased strength (p < 0.001). Discussion: Increasing layer height and line width decreased print time by 50 and 39%, respectively. Increased shell thickness did not alter print time. These changes are recommended for printing.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
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

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 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of 3D Printing in MedicineSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207