MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404333680 · doi:10.1115/detc2024-142857

Human-Artificial Intelligence Teaming for Scientific Information Extraction From Data-Driven Additive Manufacturing Research Using Large Language Models

2024· article· en· W4404333680 on OpenAlexaff
Mutahar Safdar, Jiarui Xie, A. Mircéa, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInformation extractionExtraction (chemistry)Artificial intelligenceNatural language processingData scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Data-driven research in Additive Manufacturing (AM) has gained significant success in recent years. This has led to a plethora of scientific literature to emerge. The knowledge in these works consists of AM and Artificial Intelligence (AI) contexts that haven’t been mined and formalized in an integrated way. It requires substantial effort and time to extract scientific information from these works. AM domain experts have contributed over two dozen review papers to summarize these works. However, information specific to AM and AI contexts still requires manual effort to extract. The recent success of foundation models such as BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations for Transformers) or GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformers) on textual data has opened the possibility of expediting scientific information extraction. We propose a framework that enables collaboration between AM and AI experts to continuously extract scientific information from data-driven AM literature. A demonstration tool is implemented based on the proposed framework and a case study is conducted to extract information relevant to the datasets, modeling, sensing, and AM system categories. We show the ability of LLMs (Large Language Models) to expedite the extraction of relevant information from data-driven AM literature. In the future, the framework can be used to extract information from the broader design and manufacturing literature in the engineering discipline.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207