MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760172814 · doi:10.5151/1983-4764-27685

AUMENTO DA CONFIABILIDADE DE ROLETES DE PLANICIDADE INSTALADOS EM LAMINADORES DE FOLHA DE ALUMINIO

2017· article· pt· W2760172814 on OpenAlexaff
Marcelo Gonçalves Pereira, João Guilherme Brigoni Massoti, Danilo Amorim da Silva, Edmilson Ricardo de Oliveira Santos, Dario Galli Barbosa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ResumoOs roletes de planicidade estão instalados na posição frontal dos laminadores.O histórico do equipamento mostra um tempo entre falha de 6 meses, caracterizadas principalmente por fratura da gaiola e danos na pista dos rolamentos lado acionado.Danos no eixo na região de montagem aumentam em torno de 10 horas a indisponibilidade da máquina para recuperação do mesmo.A partir da RCFA realizada nos rolamentos falhos, identificou-se deficiência de lubrificação, sinais de ovalização, descascamento e desalinhamento na pista de rolagem, fratura da gaiola.Com base nos modos de falha foi realizado a alteração e adequação da lubrificação dos mancais, melhora do sistema de vedação e alteração da disposição de montagem dos rolamentos de contato angular de back-to-back ("O") para face-toface ("X").Com as modificações realizadas os roletes atualmente operaram por mais de 14 meses sem ocorrência de falha.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207