MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Machine learning based optimization of a ceramic bushing manufacturing process

2022· article· en· W4311412360 on OpenAlex
Thomas H. Schmitt, Maximilian Bundscherer, Ralf Drechsel, Tobias Bocklet

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.

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 IEEE Sensors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Canadian institutionsSteinbach Bible College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBushingProcess (computing)CeramicComputer sciencePosition (finance)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringProcess engineeringEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning (ML) has shown great promise in a variety of domains in recent years. ML models are known to require large amounts of labeled training data, keeping small to medium-sized business from utilizing them. This paper presents ML based approach to optimize a ceramic bushing manufac-turing process, by predicting the employed press-fit process as a function of press punch position. Accurate predictions would ensure optimal process configuration, guaranteeing quality and reducing waste. Models are trained in a supervised manner to predict the press-fit process and the ceramic defect probabilities as functions of press punch position. We were able to predict the press-fit process with a mean correlation of 0.996 and assess whether the process would damage the ceramic with a mean precision of 96.7%. Our results exemplify how ML can be used to predict and optimize highly specialised processes even with small datasets.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

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 head0.214
Teacher spread0.202 · 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