MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210641327 · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2021.38569

Establishing failure patterns of a Belt Conveyor System configuration

2021· article· en· W3210641327 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

VenueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBelt Conveyor Systems Engineering
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pacific Railway (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConveyor beltFault tree analysisConveyor systemComponent (thermodynamics)Belt conveyorReliability engineeringFailure mode and effects analysisFault (geology)Computer scienceTree (set theory)EngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The conveyor belt is one of the most operational critical equipment’s in the mining industry, they are mostly used in the transportation of crushed materials from the crushing station to where there’ll be further processed. Due to the increasing complexity of belt conveyor systems, managing their integrity has become even more difficult, as they are now used across various industries, environments and carry materials of different weight variations, leaving them susceptible to failures (1). This paper provides an industry specific knowledge on belt conveyor systems, their respective components, and how they are configured using fault tree analysis to predict the different branches of event that can contribute to the failure of a belt conveyor system. The use of fault tree analysis sheds more light on how cascading failures can occur, where the failure of one component leads to the failure of the overall system. (2) Keywords: RCFA, FMEA Opex, FTA, Capex, Eca, Ttf, Ttr.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.473
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.285 · 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