MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416041490 · doi:10.1016/j.addlet.2025.100338

Track cross-sectional profile model for time-invariant deposition processes — Applied to cold spray and aerosol jet printing

2025· article· en· W4416041490 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexander Martinez-Marchese, Alex-George Miclaus, Bahareh Marzbanrad, Ehsan Marzbanrad, Qian Chen, M. Wörner, Hamid Jahed, Ehsan Toyserkani, Chinedum E. Okwudire

Bibliographic record

VenueAdditive Manufacturing Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh-Temperature Coating Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichigan Economic Development Corporation
KeywordsDeposition (geology)NozzleAerosolTrack (disk drive)Jet (fluid)Flux (metallurgy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling the track cross-sectional profile (CSP) in deposition processes is critical for assessing and controlling deposition quality. This article focuses on modeling time-invariant deposition (TID) processes, where deposited material does not move after impact with the evolving surface, and deposition efficiency remains constant. For a TID process, the CSP can be computed from the mass flux distribution using the Abel integral transform. The model is validated for cold spray (CS) and aerosol jet printing. Using the TID assumption enables the modeling of CS and AJP tracks from dot deposition data with height and width errors down to 11 and 22% for CS, and 7 and 21% for AJP. The error of this model when considering short and curved tracks is discussed, as well as the effects of nozzle standoff distance and tilt. Fast methods for arbitrary CSP computations and a fast CS method considering varying deposition efficiency are also discussed.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdditive Manufacturing LettersSame topicHigh-Temperature Coating BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207