MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251980527 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14646681.v1

The Effects Of Blast Lag In Abrasive Jet Machined Micro-Channel Intersections

2021· preprint· en· W4251980527 on OpenAlexafffund
Soheil Shafagh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAbrasiveLagMachiningMaterials scienceBrittlenessChannel (broadcasting)Jet (fluid)MechanicsMechanical engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineeringMetallurgyPhysicsElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abrasive jet micro-machining (AJM) uses compressed air carrying abrasive solid particles to micro-machine a variety of features into surfaces. If the features are smaller than a few mm, then a patterned erosion-resistant mask is used to protect the substrate material, leaving exposed areas to define the features. Previous investigations have revealed a ‘blast lag’ phenomenon in which, for the same dose of abrasive particles, the etched depth of micro-channels and holes tends to decrease as the features become narrower. Blast lag occurs when using AJM on brittle substrates because of the natural tendency to rapidly form a V-shaped cross-sectional profile which inhibits abrasive particle strikes on the narrow vertex at the feature centerline. In this thesis, for the first time, the blast lag phenomenon is studied when using AJM to machine a network of microfluidic channels. It is found that, in some cases, differences in blast lag occurring at channel intersections and within the channels themselves, can lead to channel networks of non-uniform depth. A previously developed surface evolution model is used to predict the onset of blast lag in the channels and intersections, and thus explain these differences. Finally, methods to eliminate the differences are discussed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

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 science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207