MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388535215 · doi:10.1080/09537287.2023.2275694

Exploring the barriers in medical additive manufacturing from an emerging economy

2023· article· en· W4388535215 on OpenAlexaff
Virendra Kumar Verma, Sachin Kamble, L. Ganapathy, Venkatesh Mani, Amine Belhadi, Yangyan Shi

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction Planning & Control · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityBusinessContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Health technologyIndustrial organizationMarketingEnvironmental economicsHealth careEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable medical additive manufacturing (SMAM) is becoming the next Industry 4.0 technology to revolutionise the medical industry. The adoption of SMAM offers several advantages and brings a paradigm shift in complex manufacturing geometry with improved quality, speed, cost, and sustainability in medical sectors. This research aims to identify the adoption barriers of SMAM in the Indian context. The research design involves two-step procedures: First, a literature review was conducted to determine the barriers to SMAM technology adoption. Later, these were validated by a panel of experts from industry and academia. Second, a hybrid ISM-DEMATEL methodology was deployed to establish and evaluate the cause-effect relationship between the validated barriers. Our findings suggest that among the identified barriers, infrastructural barriers were the most important for adopting SMAM in India, followed by a lack of long-term planning, operational barriers, and supply-demand barriers. Further, it also identified net cause driving barriers, including financial barriers, legal and policy barriers, technological barriers, and management barriers to SMAM adoption. As the adoption of SMAM offers several advantages, including a shift in complex manufacturing geometry with improved quality, speed, cost, and sustainability in medical sectors, these findings assume significance and will help decision-makers overcome complex barriers to SMAM adoption.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction Planning & ControlSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207