MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051034453 · doi:10.1115/1.1643080

Characteristics of Heat Transfer During Machining With Rotary Tools

2004· article· en· W2051034453 on OpenAlexaff
H. A. Kishawy and, Andrew G. Gerber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotational speedMachiningRakeMechanical engineeringDiscretizationHeat transferRake angleChipRotational energyMaterials scienceMechanicsMachine toolComputer scienceEngineeringPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysisClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper a model is developed to analyze heat transfer and temperature distribution resulting during machining with rotary tools. The presented model is based on a finite-volume discretization approach applied to a general conservation of energy statement for the rotary tool and chip during machining. The tool rotational speed is modeled and its effect on the heat partitioning between the tool and the chip is investigated. The model is also used to examine the influence of tool speed on the radial temperature distribution on the tool rake face. A comparison between the predicted and previously measured temperature data shows good agreement. In general the results show that the tool-chip partitioning is influenced dramatically by increasing the tool rotational speed at low to moderate levels of tool speed. Also, there is an optimum tool rotational speed at which further increase in the tool rotational speed increases the average tool temperature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Manufacturing Science and EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207