MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Feature Extraction Algorithm for Hybrid Manufacturing and Its Application in Robot-Based Additive and Subtractive Processes

2023· article· en· W4362659401 on OpenAlexafffund
Owen Cooke, Hamdan Al-Musaibeli, Rafiq Ahmad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsRemanufacturingComputer scienceProcess (computing)Subtractive colorFeature extractionCADRobotFeature (linguistics)Manufacturing engineeringAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringEngineering drawing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing efficient, non-traditional manufacturing methods is critical for achieving a circular economy. Remanufacturing, the process in which a part is modified to restore original or like-new functionality, can improve manufacturing sustainability by closing the supply chain loop. A critical remanufacturing technique is hybrid manufacturing: combined additive and subtractive manufacturing processes that enable features to be added or removed from an existing part. This paper proposes a method for automating the feature extraction process for hybrid manufacturing, which is otherwise labor-intensive. The feature extraction is performed between a CAD model of the desired part and a 3D scan of the actual part to be remanufactured. The extracted features are then classified for the optimal manufacturing process and exported as STL files, which can be utilized as inputs for various tool path planning algorithms. An experiment is performed on an end-of-life case study to validate the proposed methodology. Additionally, simulations of the additive and subtractive remanufacturing processes are included to demonstrate one potential application of the proposed feature extraction process.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207