MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498343498 · doi:10.4271/2006-01-3191

Evaluation of SAE J840 Lining Shear Test Procedure

2006· article· en· W1498343498 on OpenAlexaff
Rena Basch, Carlos Agudelo, Tom Millsap, Dave Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsShear (geology)Test (biology)Structural engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeologyEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SAE Brake Linings Committee launched an evaluation of the current SAE standard J840 “Test Procedures for Brake Shoe and Lining Bonds,” specifically the bond plane shear test. The aim of the study was to identify what settings in the shear test lead to the most repeatable results for a variety of linings. An initial four factor two-level design of experiments (DOE) was conducted, with 15 pads sheared for each condition. The DOE looked at pad material type (NAO and semi-metallic), backing plate attachment type (integrally molded and mechanical retention system), ram offset position (1.0 mm and 4.0 mm) and normal pressure (0 and 0.5 N/mm2). The test measured shear force and percentage material retention for each pad tested. The objective of the DOE was to guide revision of the SAE J840 shear test procedure. For example, the application of a normal force raises the nominal value of the shear force by 30-50%, and reduces the variability of the test results. Hence, the Committee will recommend incorporating normal force application for disc brake pads. This paper will present the results of the factorial DOE with resolution IV (8 trials, 4 two-level factors, 15 repetitions) and the proposed revisions to the standard.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207