MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215501155 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2021.107633

Data related to architectural bone parameters and the relationship to Ti lattice design for powder bed fusion additive manufacturing

2021· article· en· W3215501155 on OpenAlexafffund
Martine McGregor, Sagar Patel, Stewart McLachlin, Mihaela Vlasea

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFedDev Ontario
KeywordsTitanium alloyLattice (music)FusionMaterials scienceAlloyLattice constantCrystal structureTitaniumCrystallographyComposite materialMetallurgyOpticsChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The data included in this article provides additional supporting information on our publication (McGregor et al. [1]) on the review of the natural lattice architecture in human bone and its implication towards titanium (Ti) lattice design for laser powder bed fusion and electron beam powder bed fusion. For this work, X-ray computed tomography was deployed to understand and visualize a Ti-6Al-4V lattice structure manufactured by laser powder bed fusion. This manuscript includes details about the manufacturing of the lattice structure using laser powder bed fusion and computed tomography methods used for analyzing the lattice structure. Additionally, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to understand how lattice parameters are controlled in additively manufactured Ti and Ti-alloy parts aimed at replacing or augmenting human bone. From this literature review, lattice design information was collected and is summarized in tabular form in this manuscript.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.016
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreDataset

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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207