MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220666717 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090123

Comparative Prediction and Modelling of Surface Roughness in Milling of AL-7075 Using Regression Analysis and Neural Network

2022· article· en· W4220666717 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hiba K. Hussein, Israa R. Shareef, Iman A. Zayer

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkRegression analysisSurface roughnessRegressionLinear regressionProcess (computing)Surface finishPolynomial regressionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface roughness (Ra) of machine parts effects significantly the fatigue strength, corrosion resistance and aesthetic appeal of them. Therefore, Ra is an important parameter in manufacturing process. In this research, Ra of Aluminum Al-7075 in milling process is predicted and minimized. Ra minimization has to be in standard mathematical model formula. In order to predict minimum Ra value, developing a model is taken to deal with real Ra experimental data of the milling process. Two model approaches which are Regression and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) are proposed for minimum Ra value prediction. The studied process parameters were: speed of cut, feed rate and depth of cut. Regression and ANN were used to investigate the effect of these parameters on Ra through 27 cases of study, where full Analysis of Ra besides to determining regression equation and optimum process parameters are achieved. This study results show that each of Regression & ANN models had reduced minimum Ra in very similar value by 0.987. This similarity reflects the promise approach of this study in predicting Ra in AL-7075 milling, unlike previous studies that either the regression or the Artificial intelligence method was the dominant in results.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207