MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Issues associated with welding and surfacing of large mobile mining equipment for use in oil sands applications

2015· article· en· W1571979960 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Technology of Welding & Joining · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWelding Techniques and Residual Stresses
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeldingAutomotive industryArc weldingPetroleum industryProduction (economics)Mining industryManufacturing engineeringMaterials scienceMining engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welding for large mobile mining equipment commonly used in the oil sands mining industry represents a unique aspect of the construction and mining heavy equipment industries. Low volume, high production capacity dominates, differing from the high volume, low production typical of the on-highway cartage automotive industry. The use of robotic welders is increasing but remains predominantly avoided due to the high cost associated with fixturing and positioning of large structural components, compounded by tolerance concerns. The main issues facing weld performance are fatigue and wear. A large portion of the ultraclass large mobile mining equipment industry focuses on fast field repair techniques, dominated by shielded metal arc welding, while in shop repairs, gas metal arc welding remains the preference.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.255 · 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