MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000514531 · doi:10.1177/0954405412458741

Experimental and numerical investigation into workpiece surface topology in point grinding

2012· article· en· W2000514531 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

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part B Journal of Engineering Manufacture · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindingSurface roughnessMaterials sciencePoint (geometry)Surface (topology)Grinding wheelSurface finishYield (engineering)Mechanical engineeringSingle pointGeometryComposite materialMechanicsEngineeringComputer simulationPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Point grinding is a cylindrical grinding process where the grinding wheel axis can be tilted relative to the workpiece axis by a swivel angle to yield a point contact. This feature enables complex parts to be ground in a single set-up on a point grinding machine. In this article, the effect of the swivel angle on the workpiece surface finish was investigated experimentally and numerically for different workpiece materials. There was good agreement between the measured and predicted workpiece surface roughness values R a with an average difference of 6.3% for the three cutting speeds tested. It was also observed that, for the grinding conditions investigated, the swivel angle does not significantly influence the resulting workpiece surface roughness.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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