MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389094402 · doi:10.31399/asm.amp.2023-07.p012

Bridging Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science

2023· article· en· W4389094402 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAM&P Technical Articles · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBridging (networking)Science and engineeringConnection (principal bundle)EngineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering ethicsEngineering physicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To learn about the important connection between mechanical engineering and materials science, we turned to five experts with backgrounds in both fields for insight. The panelists share their perspectives on how the two disciplines informed their careers, which types of design challenges can be solved with materials information, and how ASM can improve that connection by leading with a “unity of disciplines” approach. The panelists are Scott Carpenter, Vactronix Scientific; Bertrand Jodoin, University of Ottawa; Vistasp Karbhari, The University of Texas at Arlington; Marina B. Ruggles-Wrenn, Air Force Institute of Technology; and Judith A. Todd, The Pennsylvania State University.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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