Determining the Thickness Coating of Grinding Powders of Synthetic Diamond Based on a Specific-Surface Approach and using an Extrapolation-Affine 3D Model of Grain
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: Methodological features of indirect determining of thickness coating of grains grinding powders of synthetic diamond are analyzed. A newly revised classification of known methods for determining the thickness of the coating is proposed. The prospects of the methods based on the application of an external specific surface are noted. A positive feature is the proposal to determine the thickness of the coating separately for each grain of the sample, followed by the generalization of the results by calculating the arithmetic mean. This calculation scheme allows you to get more reliable information about the thickness of the coating. The expediency of using an extrapolation-affine 3D grain model in such a calculation scheme is substantiated. Using the extrapolation-affininе 3D grain model allows for determining the thickness of the coating of diamond powder grains without the traditional assumption about the spherical shape of their grains and with less error. For an example of grinding powder AC125 400/315, the advantage of such a 3D model compared to a 3D model in the form of a sphere is proved. The method proposed on the basis of such methodical innovation can be used for powders of other abrasive materials.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it