MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296626317 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2022.09.045

Prompt uncertainty estimation with GUM framework for on-machine tool coordinate metrology

2022· article· en· W4296626317 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodMetrologyCoordinate-measuring machineCovariance matrixMeasurement uncertaintyGauge (firearms)Machine toolPoint (geometry)Matrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceAlgorithmUncertainty analysisCovarianceMathematicsEngineeringStatisticsSimulationMechanical engineeringGeometryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper validates the uncertainty evaluated following the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) for on-machine probing with a five-axis machine tool. A partly synthetic input covariance matrix is assembled for Monte Carlo and GUM frameworks, which separately estimate the uncertainty of on-machine probed point sets and obtained geometric features. The differences between the GUM and Monte Carlo results lie within the stipulated tolerances with comparable coverage regions and marginal distributions. This validates the GUM framework, which is on average 24 and 249 times faster for on-machine measurement of a gauge block and a precision sphere, respectively.

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.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · 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