MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3097062834 · doi:10.1017/exp.2020.42.pr1

Review 1: Practicality of Tricone Bit Wear Condition Assessment

2020· peer-review· en· W3097062834 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Miho Klaić

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersArcelorMittalNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsBit (key)DrillingComputer scienceReliability engineeringCatastrophic failureEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A practical bit condition monitoring system is a necessary component of autonomous drilling. Tricone bits are widely used in blasthole drilling in mining. Bits experience a variety of wear mechanisms during the operation and rolling element failure is the dominant catastrophic failure mode of tricone bits. Bit lifetime and performance significantly vary based on the working condition and the critical components of the bit i.e. rolling elements, are invisible to the direct condition monitoring systems. At McGill University, extensive research work is conducted to develop an indirect bit condition monitoring and failure prediction approach relying on the vibration signals and the technology is currently patent pending. This article presents real-world experimental evidence to show the unreliability of conservative bit changing strategy based on the bit operation life or drop in the rate of penetration (ROP) and ineffectiveness of direct wear monitoring techniques to cover the dominant failure mode.ObjectiveTo demonstrate the unreliability of tricone bit replacement relying on bit operation life or ROP measurement and ineffectiveness of vision-based monitoring techniques for autonomous drilling.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.1320.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.327 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207