MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600826049

Self-lubrication of machining tools in dry via in-situ formed tribofilms.

2005· article· en· W2600826049 on OpenAlexaff
Tatsuhiko Aizawa, S. Yamamoto, Taro Sumitomo

Bibliographic record

VenueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced materials and composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLubricationMachiningMaterials scienceMetallurgyMachinabilityMicrostructureOxideComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Green manufacturing technology has become a significant innovative keyword to reduce the environmental burden and CO2 emission at the stage of manufacturing and production. In daily operations by machining, huge amount of lubricating oils and cleansing agents is wasted so that dry machining technology provides us a way to completely reduce these wastes. Among several candidates, self-lubrication via in-situ formation of lubricious oxide films is accommodated to protective coatings in order to attain low friction and wear state even at higher cutting speed range. Materials science of in-situ formed lubricious oxide tribofilms is stated with consideration of accommodation mechanism via the chlorine implantation. Mechanical characterization is made for evaluation on elasto-plastic deformation of lubricious oxides. Turning test is employed to evaluate dry machinability of various tools for wide range of cutting speed. Self-lubrication in dry machining is described both for bare WC and TiCN-coated WC tools with and without chlorine implantation. Precise microstructure analyses are made by using the laser microscope, EDS and XPS. In-situ formation of lubricous oxides proves that self-lubrication process takes place even in dry machining to reduce the flank wear and friction coefficient.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQueensland's institutional digital repository (The University of Queensland)Same topicAdvanced materials and compositesFrench-language works237,207