MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963079453 · doi:10.1080/17480272.2019.1644371

Dynamic response of guided spline circular saws vs. collared circular saws, subjected to external loads

2019· article· en· W2963079453 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWood Material Science and Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringSpline (mechanical)Materials scienceAcousticsComposite materialEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While collared saws are no longer widely used in North America for primary breakdown of logs to boards, these are common in most of European sawmills. In North America, guided spline circular saws are used for sawing of boards of varying dimensions. This paper presents a stability analysis of spinning disk, an idealized representation of circular saw, for collared and splined arbor saws, when subjected to radial and tangential in-plane forces. The governing linear equations of transverse motion of a spinning disk, subjected to edge-loads, are used in evaluation of the energy transfer from the applied loads to the disk vibrations. This analysis is used to examine the role of critical system components in the development of instability. Unique experimental results of dynamic behavior of both saw types are presented in calculation of critical and flutter instability speeds of the system.

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 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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