MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200445213 · doi:10.32920/16777621.v1

Cable Pulley Test

2021· preprint· en· W4200445213 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Nguyen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulleyDrop (telecommunication)Tension (geology)Drop testStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>This report will investigate the interactions regarding a cable pulley system within the nose landing gear. There is the possibility of tension drops occurring within this system. A test was done to determine the tension values within the system, this test was to isolate two possibilities that could</div><div>cause the tension drop. These two possibilities were structural deflection within the nose landing gear or the tension loss occurring within the pulley cluster. With this test it was found that there are in fact tension drops when the pulley cluster was used on a rigid system without the structural deformations of the nose landing gear. There are some discrepancies where a basic cable test was done without the pulley cluster and no tension drop was found. This would lead to an investigation to occur after this test</div><div>to determine why the tension drop happens with the cable and pulley cluster interaction. Some reasons to the tension drop within the pulley cluster would be unwinding of the cable as well as deformation occurring. There is however no definite answer for the tension drop as the observation was difficult within such a confined and small space of the pulley cluster.</div>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207