MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968582355 · doi:10.1088/0964-1726/20/4/045016

Separation of the vibration-induced signal of oil debris for vibration monitoring

2011· article· en· W1968582355 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

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationSIGNAL (programming language)DebrisCondition monitoringAcousticsInterference (communication)Particle (ecology)WaveletStructural engineeringComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringGeologyPhysicsArtificial intelligenceElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil debris sensors are designed for monitoring machine component conditions by detecting oil debris in the circulating oil lines. However, these sensors are not only sensitive to metallic particles, but are susceptible to machinery vibration as well. The vibration-induced signal has thus far been treated as interference and is accordingly removed to better reveal the particle signature. As the vibration signal also contains important information on machine health, which can be used to detect not only the machine component faults but also machine structural malfunctions, we propose a joint integral and wavelet transform approach to separate the vibration and particle signals to make the oil debris sensor multi-functional. The recovered vibration signal is then used to detect faults that cannot be revealed by examining oil debris content. Our experimental results have shown that the separated vibration signal is, in general, consistent with the vibration velocity and hence can be used as an auxiliary vibration monitoring tool.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.248 · 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