MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402909828 · doi:10.1016/j.jcomc.2024.100513

A review of AI for optimization of 3D printing of sustainable polymers and composites

2024· review· en· W4402909828 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Malik Hassan, Manjusri Misra, Graham W. Taylor, Amar K. Mohanty

Bibliographic record

VenueComposites Part C Open Access · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Keywords3D printingComposite materialMaterials sciencePolymerComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, 3D printing has experienced significant growth in the manufacturing sector due to its ability to produce intricate and customized components. The advent of Industry 4.0 further boosted this progress by seamlessly incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) in 3D printing processes. As a result, design precision and production efficiency have significantly improved. Although numerous studies have explored the integration of AI and 3D printing, the literature still lacks a comprehensive overview that emphasizes material selection and formulation, predictive modeling, design optimization, and quality control. To fully understand the impacts of these emerging technologies on advanced manufacturing, a thorough assessment is required. This review aims to examine the intersection of AI and 3D printing to create a technologically advanced and environment-friendly manufacturing environment. It examines factors such as material, process efficiency, and design enhancements to highlight the benefits of combining these technologies. By focusing on predictive modeling, material selection and quality control, this analysis aims to unlock the potential for a sustainable and efficient 3D printing process. This review provided a thorough analysis of the challenges and potential benefits, proving valuable for academics and practitioners alike. It presents solutions that may establish a foundation for sustained growth and outlines a strategy for leveraging 3D printing and AI capabilities in the manufacturing sector.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.324 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations60
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComposites Part C Open AccessSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207