PERENCANAAN PROSES REVITALISASI POROS MAIN OIL PUMP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perencanaan proses revitalisasi poros Main Oil Pump perlu di lakukan sesuaidengan prosedur dan standar guna mencapai hasil baik. Perencanaan prosesrevitalisasi yang di lakukan antara lain, Pemesinan, Perakitan, dan Pengelasan.Pengelasan mengikuti standar ASME Sec.IX, sedangkan proses lainnyamengikuti prosedur dan standar yang di tetapkan oleh pabrik. Proses revitalisasiyang baik tidak lepas dari peran kontrol kualitas. Dalam proses ini ada beberapainspeksi yang berpengaruh terhadap kualitas dari poros itu sendiri. Diantaranyainspeksi proses tersebut adalah mengukur toleransi Runout, melaksanakan NDTdan yang terakhir Balancing. Proses Kontrol Kualitas tersebut di lakukan gunauntuk menghindar penyimpangan ukuran, terjadinya cacat di area pengelasandan misalignment serta unbalance pada poros Main Oil Pump. Poros hasilrevitalisasi setelah di uji mempunyai spesifikasi yang sesuai standar yangditetapkan pabrik yaitu mempunyai runout sebesar 0.03 mm, dimensi dangeometri lainnya sesuai yang di tentukan pada gambar kerja.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".