Human–Artificial Intelligence Teaming for Scientific Information Extraction From Data-Driven Additive Manufacturing Literature Using Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. It requires substantial effort and time to extract scientific information from these works. AM domain experts have contributed over two dozen review articles 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 bidirectional encoder representations for transformers or generative pre-trained transformers on text sequences 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 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".