MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

NEW SPECIFICATIONS OF THE THEORY OF GROUND CUTTING

2019· article· en· W3197167203 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

VenuePERIÓDICO TCHÊ QUÍMICA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcavatorEarthworksDiggingHydrostatic equilibriumFunction (biology)Coupling (piping)Mechanical engineeringCutting toolEngineeringHydrostatic pressureStructural engineeringGeotechnical engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Earthwork is performed by some digging machines: excavators, scrapers, graders, dragline excavators, ditching machines, boring installations, etc. Some researchers were engaged in the cutting of soil, and in general, the theory of cutting of soil is rather developed. However, its provisions are correct to the determination of machines of the soil performing almost rectilinear cutting close to a surface, in a dehydrated medium. As practice shows, the known provisions of the theory of cutting do not allow to calculate accuracy the mode and loading of these machines. This article is devoted to the establishment of the regularities determining soil resistance to destruction for construction boring and milling machines. The determined dependencesdetermining the law of change of a corner of a chip when cutting soil as a function from the coupling, pressure in soil, hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressure upon a surface, the angle of cutting, the angles of internal and external friction are determined. Coefficients of working conditions which describe a high-quality picture of cutting of soil are received and give a ratio of forces in case of rectilinear destruction of soil to forces arising in case of its milling.

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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.194 · 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