MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136605306 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.5941

Development of a Low Cost, Easily Constructed Drill Dynamometer Laboratory

2015· article· en· W2136605306 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ted Hubbard, Clifton Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDynamometerTorqueDrillAutomotive engineeringPower (physics)CordlessTension (geology)Mechanical engineeringEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringAcousticsMaterials scienceCompression (physics)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a Drill Dynamometer laboratory using cordless drills. This particular setup was chosen as it allows students to be introduced to topics such as: motor torque and power curves, power bands, current and efficiency curves; all at a relatively low and safe power level. The setup consists of a cordless drill coupled to a hex shaft mounted friction spool. The spool and pillow block bearing mounts are Rapid Prototyped from ABS plastic. Students apply tension to a belt wrapped around the spool and brake tension is measured using a spring scale. Motor RPM is measured by means of a modified bicycle computer. The batteries on the drill are replaced with an external battery pack with voltage and current meters. Student measurements show a high degree of precision for the linear speed vs. torque curves and the parabolic power vs. torque curves. The kit is made from easily obtainable materials and supplies and was constructed quickly for less than $200 a kit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.006

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207