MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286772262 · doi:10.1504/ijex.2015.069315

Investigation of sustainability in machining processes: exergy analysis of turning operations

2015· article· en· W2286772262 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

VenueInternational Journal of Exergy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy Efficiency and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExergySustainabilityEnergy consumptionProcess (computing)MachiningExergy efficiencyProcess engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmentally friendlyEnvironmental scienceManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimisation of the machining process in terms of minimum cost and minimum energy consumption has already been presented in the literature. This paper is aimed at developing a new methodology for optimising the process to improve the machining sustainability aspects. The exergy analysis method is employed for investigation of sustainability in the dry turning process. Evaluations of exergy efficiency and exergy loss during the process along with the effects of various cutting parameters are performed. The objective of process optimisation is to minimise exergy loss. The optimisation process results in a tool life equation that satisfies the minimum exergy loss requirement. The exergy analysis takes into account the concept of quality as well as the energy footprint to measure the effects of the process on the environment. Comparison of the results of the presented analysis with results from the minimum energy consumption method shows that the developed model can provide the cutting conditions for a more environmentally friendly machining process.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.275 · 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