MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413282782 · doi:10.61882/jcc.6.2.2

Exploring 3-D printing: additive manufacturing for metallic components, processes, structures, and properties

2024· article· en· W4413282782 on OpenAlexaff
Mojdeh Mahdi Rezaei Khamseh, Soroush Etebarian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites and Compounds · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
Keywords3D printingMaterials scienceMetalMetallurgyManufacturing engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of metal additive manufacturing (AM), a production technique that uses digital 3D models to directly construct intricate metallic components layer by layer. It discusses the key procedures in metal AM, such as directed energy deposition (DED), binder jetting (BJ), and powder bed fusion (PBF), emphasizing how they can create parts with complex geometries that are impossible to achieve with conventional manufacturing techniques. In addition to addressing issues like anisotropy and joint flaws related to the process, the focus is on metal additive manufacturing's exceptional ability to produce components with complex geometries and specific microstructures that traditional manufacturing cannot provide. The paper also explores the significance of post-processing approaches for performance enhancement and how process parameters influence the mechanical and structural properties of the produced components. Applications in the industrial, automotive, and medical fields highlight the technology's versatility and growing market potential. By integrating digital design with functional metal components, this synthesis aids in the design, optimization, and selection of suitable metal AM methods for advanced metallic component manufacture.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites and CompoundsSame topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207