MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281714846 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1678194/v1

A Novel Elasto-Geometric Model Exploiting Loaded Circular Test on a Machine Tool

2022· preprint· en· W4281714846 on OpenAlexafffund
Babak Beglarzadeh, J.R.R. Mayer, Andreas Archenti

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced machining processes and optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeometric meanMathematicsRange (aeronautics)Constant (computer programming)Variable (mathematics)Mean squared errorGeometric modelingMathematical analysisSimulationGeometryStatisticsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A novel elasto-geometric model is introduced that simultaneously estimates joint compliances and geometric error parameters by employing the loaded double ball bar apparatus. The model parameters are estimated from tests at different force levels by distinguishing between errors that change with the applied force (compliance effect) from those that do not (geometric effects). At lower forces, the geometric errors are dominant whilst at higher forces compliance-induced errors dominate. By feeding the elasto-geometric model with pairs of adjacent force data the evolution of the estimated equivalent local compliance parameters and geometric errors with changes in the applied force are observed. Although theoretically unexpected, the estimated geometric errors also change across the force range. As the force increases the majority of equivalent compliance terms increase such as the dominant equivalent compliances C XXX and C YYY as well as the less significant compliances C XYX and C CCY . As for C CXY and C CYY, no clear trend was observed. Given this observed dependence of the compliance on the force level, the model was enriched by modeling the compliances as linear functions of the applied force. A single set of geometric errors could then be estimated and deemed valid across the load range. The root mean square error (RMSE) value for predicting the radial readings for all force levels for the constant and linearly variable compliance models are 0.0011 and 0.0009 mm, respectively, representing an 18% improvement for the linear compliance model. Both the constant and linearly variable compliance models exhibit over 91% fit to the experimental data with just over 1% improvement for the linear compliance model.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
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 score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicAdvanced machining processes and optimizationFrench-language works237,207