MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386454703 · doi:10.1002/9781119210801.ch7

Material Extrusion

2021· other· en· W4386454703 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Toyserkani, Dyuti Sarker, Osezua Ibhadode, Farzad Liravi, Paola Russo, Katayoon Taherkhani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrusionProcess (computing)ComputationMechanical engineeringFused deposition modelingDeposition (geology)Materials sciencePolymerNonlinear systemComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsMetallurgyComposite materialAlgorithm3D printingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter reviews the physics and modeling of the material extrusion (ME) additive manufacturing process. It also reviews available analytical and numerical models to provide a base for a better understanding of ME with this fact in mind that none of these models have been customized for highly filled composite filaments. In addition to the analytical models, computational fluid dynamics tools have been used to model the extrusion of single-phase polymers. The available models are focused on different parts of the extrusion process, such as the liquefier dynamics, extrusion, deposition, and healing. Given the complex nature of the extrusion process involving multiple physics and nonlinear relationships, the numerical computations can become expensive in terms of time. Although most of the models are mainly customized for the conventional polymer-based ME process, with adequate consideration and experimentally identified metal filament properties, the polymer-based models would be good platforms for modeling of metal ME.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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