MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159977601 · doi:10.4271/2014-01-0395

Assessing the Likelihood of Binding in Distorted Stepped Radius Cylinder Bores

2014· article· en· W2159977601 on OpenAlexaff
Kiranmaye Aluru, Bruce Geist, William Resh

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgy and Material Forming
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRADIUSCylinderMaximum likelihoodGeologyGeometryMaterials scienceComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interference assessments of a stepped-radius power-train component moving within a deformed stepped bore often arise during engine and transmission development activities. For example, when loads are applied to an engine block, the block distorts. This distortion may cause a cam or crankshaft to bind or wear prematurely in its journals as the part rotates within them. Within an automatic transmission valve body, care must be taken to ensure valve body distortion under oil pressure, assembly, and thermal load does not cause spool valves to stick as they translate within the valve body. In both examples, the mechanical scenario to be assessed involves a uniform or stepped radius cylindrical part maintaining a designated clearance through a correspondingly shaped but distorted bore. These distortions can occur in cross-sections (“out-of-round”) or along the bore (in an “s” or “banana” shaped distortions). To assess clearance in a deformed (stepped or uniform) bore, a new optimization based technique is proposed. This paper defines an optimization process that determines an axis assessed as producing the largest clearance between the stepped surface and points defining the bore surfaces. This clearance is calculated for clouds of points representing undeformed and deformed cylindrical bores. From this clearance, shrinkage (or expansion) of a stepped-bore or single-radius bore is estimated. These clearance data are useful in understanding when a part may stick or bind as a result of projected stepped-bore distortion.

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)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicMetallurgy and Material FormingFrench-language works237,207