MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Design of Alternatives to Stained Glass with Open-source Distributed Additive Manufacturing for Energy Efficiency and Economic Savings

2025· preprint· en· W4410844619 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emily Bow Pearce, Joshua M. Pearce, Alessia Romani

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOpen sourceEnergy (signal processing)Process engineeringEnvironmental economicsIndustrial organizationBusinessComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stained glass has played important roles in heritage building construction, however, conventional techniques of fabricating it have become economically prohibitive due to both capital costs and energy inefficiency. To overcome these challenges, this study provides a new design methodology for customized 3D printed polycarbonate (PC)-based stained-glass window alternatives using a fully open-source toolchain and methodology. This procedure involves fabricating an additional insert made of (i) a PC substrate and (ii) custom geometries directly 3-D printed on the substrate with PC-based 3D printing feedstock (iii) to be painted after the 3D printing process. This alternative is intended to be used instead of traditional stained glass or, better, in addition to conventional windows to provide stained-glass design patterns while improving thermal insulation. Three approaches are developed and demonstrated in this study to generate customized painted stained-glass designs using (i) online-retrieved 3D and 2D designs; (ii) custom designs, i.e., hand-drawn and digital-drawn images; and (iii) AI-generated designs. The proposed methodology shows potential for distributed and accessible applications in the building and heritage sectors, especially for the repair and replication of existing conventional stained glass and the design of new customizable products that are 50 times less expensive than traditional stained glass.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207