MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956084971 · doi:10.3390/ma12132174

Machinability of Luxury Vinyl Tiles during Plain Milling Using a Helical Cutter

2019· article· en· W2956084971 on OpenAlexaff
Zhaolong Zhu, Pingxiang Cao, Xiaolei Guo, Xiaodong Wang, Fan Zhang, Yu Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDoctorate Fellowship Foundation of Nanjing Forestry UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHelix angleMachinabilitySurface roughnessMaterials scienceMachiningSurface finishDiamond toolHelix (gastropod)DrillingComposite materialGeometryDiamond cuttingSurface (topology)Diamond turningMetallurgyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to better provide a theoretical basis for the machining of luxury vinyl tiles, a helical milling experiment was conducted by using diamond cutting tools, and special attention was given to the trends of cutting force and surface roughness in respect to tool geometry and cutting parameters. The results showed that the resultant force was negatively correlated to the helix angle and cutting speed, but positively correlated with the cutting depth. Then, that the surface roughness increased with a decrease of the helix angle and an increase of cutting depth, while as cutting speed raised, the surface roughness first declined and then increased. Thirdly, the cutting depth was shown to have the greatest influence on both cutting force and surface roughness, followed by helix angle and cutting speed. Fourth, the contribution of cutting depth only was significant to cutting force, while both the helix angle and cutting speed had insignificant influence on the cutting force and surface roughness. Finally, the optimal cutting conditions were proposed for industrial production, in which the helix angle, cutting speed and cutting depth were 70°, 2200 m/min and 0.5 mm, respectively.

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 score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207