MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136514598 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2020.1734407

Performance evaluation of ultra-class mining shovel track roller paths

2020· article· en· W3136514598 on OpenAlexaff
A PATERSON, T. G. Joseph, John A. Nychka, M. Curley

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShovelTrack (disk drive)EngineeringCoal miningScale (ratio)Path (computing)Structural engineeringReliability engineeringComputer scienceSimulationAutomotive engineeringCoalMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper outlines a scale test approach for roller-roller path contact proportional to the field impact observed in the undercarriage of ultra-class mining shovels. The scale test is a cost-effective means to predict the degree of roller contact fatigue deterioration as a function of the number of field-measurable duty cycles. The proposed test method will potentially permit more cost-effective, small-scale development testing of roller path technology for specific mining conditions for ultra-class shovel designers. The preliminary data reported in this paper indicate that the proposed test configuration can infer performance to end-of-life roller-roller path combinations within the confines of a given set of field loading conditions (coal mine in this case). The results open up a future opportunity to verify the sensitivity of damage models, leading to the advancement of roller-roller path systems with greater operational longevity and reducing maintenance time and cost through avoidance of catastrophic failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM JournalSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207