MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994113286 · doi:10.1115/imece2010-38811

Investigation of Magnetic Abrasive Finishing for Internal Polishing of Aluminium Tubes Using DOE

2010· article· en· W1994113286 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Fadaei Tehrani, Mehrdad Givi, Ashkan Sepehr Afghan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Surface Polishing Techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbrasivePolishingMaterials scienceSurface roughnessAerospaceDesign of experimentsMachiningResponse surface methodologyAluminiumMetallurgyMechanical engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Magnetic Abrasive Finishing (MAF) is one of the nontraditional machining methods with vast applications in high-tech industries such as medical, aerospace and semiconductor manufacturing areas. Several researches have been done in order to studying the influence of various parameters on magnetic abrasive finishing process and characteristics of finished surface. The present paper investigates the effects of some effective parameters such as mesh size of the abrasives, the weight of the abrasive powder and the number of cycles on internal surface roughness of Aluminum tube. The optimum percentage of oil should be added to the abrasive powder was attained and applied for the main tests. Then, design of experiments (DOE) methods and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) have been applied to determine significant factors and also to obtain an equation based on data regression.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Surface Polishing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207