The extension of a simple predictive model for orthogonal cutting to include flow below the cutting edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A predictive model for orthogonal cutting that is able to accommodate the analysis of flow under a cutting edge is described. The model uses an upper-bound approach, in which the boundaries to the primary and secondary deformation zones are defined in such a way that both force and moment equilibrium of the rigid body chip is achieved. The remainder of the field is allowed to adjust so as to minimize the power consuming force, and finally force equilibrium is applied to estimate the edge forces acting under the tool. Solutions and comparison with previous theoretical and experimental observations are presented for different rake angles and chamfer or edge geometries; the influence of edge rounding or flank wear on the process are of particular interest. The model predicts a considerable change in flow geometry at high chamfer length/wear; this evidently occurs as a result of the field adjusting to balance the work in the primary and tertiary zones. The changing flow zone indicates that the hydrostatic stress at the tool edge increases as the chamfer or wear length increases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".