MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883417810 · doi:10.1115/1.2000-feb-7

Getting a Firmer Grip

2000· article· en· W2883417810 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Les M. Okreglak

Bibliographic record

VenueMechanical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical stress and fatigue analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLift (data mining)von Mises yield criterionStructural engineeringFinite element methodEngineeringSlippageMechanical engineeringFlangeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explains joint engineering efforts of engineers in designing a safer connector between the cable and chair on the lift. Whistler Mountain, along with two other ski areas in the British Columbia/Alberta region, Silver Star and Lake Louise, joined to find a replacement for the grips that would fit the existing chairlift structure and could be implemented quickly. The new grip design eliminates dependence on gravity to secure the grip to the cable on the ski lift. Helical springs exert the entire gripping force and prevent slippage. Linear static stress analyses were performed under two specific conditions: when the jaws were closed and attached to the cable, and when the jaws were open for transition to the loading track, where the force of the springs was the greatest. Built-in visualization tools in the finite element analysis (FEA) software were used to view the stress results with a von Mises display. According to the conclusive results of the testing, the grip was solid. With the tough design criteria, rigorous testing in manufacturing, and scrutiny by a regulatory body, Pol-X West was presented with a situation that ensured a very safe product while using the existing lift equipment and minimizing the resorts’ downtime. The lifts installed with the new grips have since operated successfully, without incident.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.045

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMechanical EngineeringSame topicMechanical stress and fatigue analysisFrench-language works237,207