MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194948731 · doi:10.3390/polym13162809

Polymer-Based Additive Manufacturing: Process Optimisation for Low-Cost Industrial Robotics Manufacture

2021· review· en· W3194948731 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kartikeya Walia, Ahmed Z. Khan, Philip Breedon

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNottingham Trent UniversityTrent UniversityPepsiCo
KeywordsRobotics3D printingManufacturing engineeringRobotProcess (computing)Rapid prototypingComputer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceSystems engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The robotics design process can be complex with potentially multiple design iterations. The use of 3D printing is ideal for rapid prototyping and has conventionally been utilised in concept development and for exploring different design parameters that are ultimately used to meet an intended application or routine. During the initial stage of a robot development, exploiting 3D printing can provide design freedom, customisation and sustainability and ultimately lead to direct cost benefits. Traditionally, robot specifications are selected on the basis of being able to deliver a specific task. However, a robot that can be specified by design parameters linked to a distinctive task can be developed quickly, inexpensively, and with little overall risk utilising a 3D printing process. Numerous factors are inevitably important for the design of industrial robots using polymer-based additive manufacturing. However, with an extensive range of new polymer-based additive manufacturing techniques and materials, these could provide significant benefits for future robotics design and development.

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), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207