MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789553340

CHARACTERIZATION OF NANOPARTICLES EMITTED DURING DRY CUTTING

2014· article· en· W2789553340 on OpenAlexaff
Riad Khettabi, Abdelhakim Djebara, Jules Kouam, Victor Songméné

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNanotechnology research and applications
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScanning mobility particle sizerNanoparticleCharacterization (materials science)NanomaterialsScanning electron microscopeMaterials scienceParticle (ecology)NanotechnologyMachiningProcess engineeringSpectrometerAluminiumParticle sizeParticle-size distributionMetallurgyComposite materialChemical engineeringOpticsEngineeringPhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spite of the multiple advantages ofnanomaterials, metallic particles emitted duringmanufacturing or handling of these materials can behazardous. Nanoparticles can be produced not only bynanotechnologies but also indirectly by other manufacturingprocesses used to shape nanomaterials or conventionalindustrials materials. These particles should be controlled inorder to protect health operator. Toxicologists are waitingfor data on nanoparticles emission from manufacturers toassess the impact of these particles on occupational healthand safety. Therefore, it is necessary to characterize fine andultrafine particles manufacturing processes. This paperinvestigates the size and shape distribution of nanoparticlesand the conditions that can limit their production duringmetal cutting processes. The equipments used include theMOUDI, the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Spectrometer(SMPS) and the Scanning electron microscope (SEM). Themetric used for evaluation includes the number, the particlemass, the concentration and the specific surface.Index Terms ⎯ Dry machining, aluminum alloy,Nanoparticle characterization, environment.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNanotechnology research and applicationsFrench-language works237,207