MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412520569 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-05597-2

A multi-source melt pool compilation for vision-based analytics applications in additive manufacturing

2025· article· en· W4412520569 on OpenAlexafffund
William Jabbour, Mutahar Safdar, Jiarui Xie, Yaoyao Fiona Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaMitacsMcGill University
KeywordsAnalyticsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Process analytical technologyStandardizationProcess engineeringData miningWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additive manufacturing (AM) fabricates physical objects by layering materials from a 3D digital model. In metallic AM, the melt pool represents a region of superheated molten material and plays a critical role in determining part quality. Monitoring this region has proven valuable for downstream analytics such as defect detection and microstructure prediction. Melt pool signatures, represented through various modalities (e.g., visual, thermal, acoustic) and metrics (e.g., temperatures, gradients, rates), capture essential process patterns. However, the diversity of materials, process parameters, and sensing configurations across AM systems has limited standardization. To address this, we introduce Melt-Pool-Kinetics, a curated dataset compiled from 32 datasets across 23 sources, totaling 1.9 TB of raw data and released as a 48.6 GB HDF5 collection. Images were processed using cropping, centering, resizing, grayscaling, denoising, and debayering techniques. The dataset can support machine learning applications for in-situ monitoring, process optimization, and control. The dataset is structured into different levels, such as raw, processed, and diverse subsets. The dataset enables future expansion as new melt pool data becomes available.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207