MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206406968 · doi:10.5267/j.dsl.2021.12.001

Experimental investigations and multi criteria optimization during machining of A356/WC MMCs using EDM

2022· article· en· W4206406968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akash Singh, Karan Kumar, Kondru Gnana Sundari, Rishitosh Ranjan, B. Surekha

Bibliographic record

VenueDecision Science Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Machining and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrical discharge machiningMaterials scienceMachiningTungsten carbideSurface roughnessDie castingMetallurgyMetal matrix compositeComposite numberMechanical engineeringComposite materialCastingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current paper, the authors are intended to manufacture the aluminum based metal matrix composite (MMC) employing the stir casting process. Further, the fabricated composite sample is investigated for machining characteristics during the die sink electrical discharge machining process (EDM). EDM is most commonly employed to satisfy the special needs of industry such as developing deep holes and complex contours from high strength materials such as composites, alloys, smart materials, and functionally graded materials. In the current study A356 and 4%, tungsten carbide (WC) powder are considered as matrix and strengthening materials respectively to fabricate the MMCs. During the machining activity, the input factors like discharge current (Ip), Voltage (Vg), Pulse On-Time (Ton), and flushing pressure (P) are optimized for achieving optimum surface roughness (SR), Tool Wear Rate (TWR) and Material Removal Rate (MRR). To estimate the ideal set of process factors grey regression analysis (GRA) is used. From the results, it was observed that the GRA is found to perform better than the RSM.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDecision Science LettersSame topicAdvanced Machining and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207