MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116108167 · doi:10.82417/63h7-fj19

Life cycle assessment of the spark assisted chemical engraving (SACE) micro-machining method

2025· other· en· W7116108167 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspace ÉTS (ETS) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentElectricityEnvironmental impact assessmentProduction (economics)SPARK (programming language)Energy consumptionGreenhouse gas

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the SACE (Spark Assisted Chemical Engraving) micro-machining process for brittle materials, identifying opportunities to improve its environmental profile, focusing on greenhouse gas emissions. Key contributors to the environmental footprint, such as electricity consumption, system production, and chemical usage in the electrolyte solution, were evaluated. Electricity consumption during use has relatively low impact. A sensitivity analysis showed that variations in electricity consumption and location-based energy mixes have limited influence on the overall environmental profile. Production of the SACE system itself is a relatively important source of impacts. Production of electrolyte solution is also a potential source of impact. The study highlights that improving system design, material choices, and extending the system’s lifespan are critical to reducing the environmental impact. These findings provide direction for improving the environmental profile of the SACE machining system--and similar systems--with emphasis on reducing upstream production impacts, optimizing electrolyte choices, and enhancing system longevity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueEspace ÉTS (ETS)French-language works237,207