Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although allocation of design tolerances for parts and components is typically based on the prediction of geometric and dimensional deviations resulting by the inherent errors of production, this process cannot be conducted unconstrained. Concurrent to studying the manufacturing and assembly uncertainties in tolerance allocation, it is highly important to evaluate the total combination of the allocated tolerances and the deformations due to various loading on the final product. This ensures that parts and components in their working condition meet their essential requirements for functionality, form and fit. This process is optimized only if the minimum geometric zone that covers the evaluated deformations is studied properly. In addition, the minimum deformation zones for various types of loading in an assembly of parts and components need to be studied and the tolerances should be selected after considering the requirements for all possible events. Using this concept, a unified methodology is developed to find the optimum tolerances for the geometric parameters of mechanical structures which are under various loading condition. Validity of the developed procedure is studied by conducting case studies and variety of experiments. The developed methodology can be employed efficiently during detailed design process of mechanical parts and assemblies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".