The accuracy of holes drilled in the side surface of plywood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dimensional accuracy of machining translates into susceptibility to defects in assembly of furniture elements. In the initial drilling phase, the tip of the drill may slip due to the properties of the workpiece, which may result in inaccurate machining. Taking this into account, it was decided to investigate this phenomenon for drilling in the side of the plywood board. Samples for testing were made of 18 mm thick, 13 layer birch-alder plywood, covered with melamine film, glued with phenol-formaldehyde glue. With the use of an industrial dowel drilling machine, 30 holes in each of three examined layer were made. All holes were made parallel to the layers – on the side of the plywood board, and their axes were located in three adjacent layers: the birch veneer layer, the adhesive layer, and the alder veneer layer. Two types of geometric accuracy of holes were analyzed: the distance between the real center of the hole and the nominal position and also the inclination of the hole axis from the nominal axis. The holes made in the adhesive layer showed approximately twice larger deviations compared with the holes made in two adjacent layers of veneer. There was no significant relationship between the deviations of the angle of holes axis and the inaccuracies in the position of their centers. Main conclusion: When drilling in the side surface of the plywood board, less accurate holes are obtained if the hole axis is located in the adhesive layer, and there is more accuracy if the hole axis is located in the veneer layer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".