MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prediction of Grinding Force Distribution in Wheel and Workpiece Contact Zone

2008· article· en· W2028798335 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

VenueKey engineering materials · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrindingMaterials scienceTungsten carbideContact forceMechanicsAbrasiveNormal forcePower (physics)Transient (computer programming)DiamondResultant forceComposite materialClassical mechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel method is reported for predicting the distribution of normal and tangential grinding forces in wheel and workpiece contact zone or along their contact arc. This work was motivated by the need to obtain the maximum force acting on individual active abrasive grains for establishing the probability of grain fracture and pullouts due to this force. Horizontal and vertical forces measured in the transient cut-in or cut-out stage of a grinding pass are utilized in this method to predict the horizontal and vertical forces acting on each portion of the contact arc. And then these forces are subsequently converted to tangential and normal forces per unit length along the arc to obtain the force distribution. To illustrate the application of this method, forces measured in the transient cut-out stage in the grinding of tungsten carbide with electroplated diamond wheels were employed to predict the force distribution, which was further applied to predicting the transient grinding power at the cut-in and cut-out stages. The predicted power was found to match very well with the measured power.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.170 · 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