MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888701353 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2018-0066

Burr edge occupancy: edge finishing index for milling machined parts

2018· article· en· W2888701353 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Seyed Ali Niknam, Azziz Tiabi, Victor Songméné

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionMachiningAerospaceCutting toolMechanical engineeringAutomotive industrySensitivity (control systems)Engineering drawingMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machining burrs are formed at all machined workpiece edges. One useful solution to decrease machining time and cost, in particular for milling parts, is to generate machined parts edges with minimum burr. This article proposes burr edge occupancy η s as an index to evaluate deburring difficulty and, consequently, adequate selection of suitable deburring methods. Initially the sensitivity of η s to cutting parameters must be evaluated. We investigated the main governing factors on η s when slot milling two types of aluminium alloys (from different families) that are used in the automotive and aerospace industries. The cutting parameters that led to edges with minimum η s are presented. It was found that, unlike most burr size attributes, η s is sensitive to variation of the cutting parameters used: cutting speed, family of material, and cutting tools. Lower η s means less time and effort for deburring and edge finishing of machined parts. Furthermore, η s measurement is more convenient than the procedures used to measure other burr size attributes, including burr height (b h ) and burr thickness (b t ).

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207