METHODOLOGY OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ABRASIVE TOOL’S ACTIVE SURFACE USING LASER SCATTEROMETRY
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diagnostics of abrasive tools requires the use of modern measurement techniques which allows for fast assessment of a surface in order to determine, for example, the degree of its wear or to detect various type of defects. A wide group of optical measurement methods used for this type of assessment are based on the phenomenon of light scattering. One such method based on imaging and analysis of light scattering from a surface is laser scatterometry. In this paper, by utilizing laser scatterometry supported by image analysis techniques, a proposal for a methodology of assessment of the degree to which smearing of the grinding wheel active surface (GWAS) occurs during the plunge grinding process, was presented and discussed. Select results of experimental investigations carried out on bearing steel 100Cr6 were also presented. The obtained results confirmed the efficacy of the above-mentioned techniques that could be an interesting alternative to other methods already used in such measurements.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it