MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034761972 · doi:10.1115/1.1576427

Test Results for PTFE-Faced Thrust Pads, With Direct Comparison Against Babbitt-Faced Pads and Correlation With Analysis

2003· article· en· W2034761972 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

VenueJournal of Tribology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Wear Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeneral Electric (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBabbittCreepBearing (navigation)Lift (data mining)Thrust bearingThrustMaterials sciencePower (physics)Mechanical engineeringForensic engineeringStructural engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of PTFE-faced pads in large vertical axis hydro-generators was pioneered in Russia in the 1970s, prompted by a series of failures of conventional babbitt-faced bearings. Some advantages claimed include higher specific loading, lower power loss and the omission of oil-lift facilities. There is strong interest in the Industry concerning this material, but limited data are available on actual performance. Some results from extensive testing of PTFE-faced pads are given, for two sizes of pad. These are compared directly size-for-size with results for babbitt bearings of nominally the same area. The power losses for the two types of bearing were found to be almost identical. Some of the effects observed during testing are described and discussed, including the effect of creep. The test results are compared with predictions using the GENMAT analysis software. A method of allowing for creep in numerical modeling is discussed.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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