Further look at correlation between ASTM G65 rubber wheel abrasion and pin-on-disc wear tests for data conversion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is desirable that wear testing results obtained using different techniques can be mutually converted. In this study, wear rates of two groups of materials, i.e. cast iron and steel, were evaluated using the ASTM G65 dry sand rubber wheel abrasion and pin-on-disc wear testers respectively. The conversion between results obtained using the two different methods was investigated. It was shown that the two sets of wear data can be mutually converted, following a linear relation. The slope and position of the line that fits the data are, however, affected by Young’s modulus of the materials and the applied load. Such effects are attributed to the fact that the wear rate of the materials measured using the G65 method was influenced by not only hardness but also elastic modulus, while for the pin-on-disc tests, the wear rate was more dominated by hardness of the target materials especially under larger applied loads. Relevant mechanisms are discussed with a further look at the Archard’s wear equation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it