MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389130062 · doi:10.5151/2594-5297-15777

REDUÇÃO DA TAXA DE SUCATA DE LINHA DO LAMINADOR 2, DA ARCELORMITTAL MONLEVADE

2009· article· pt· W4389130062 on OpenAlexaff
José Geraldo Valamiel de Oliveira, Carlos Henrique Silveira Aguiar, Elenildo Bastos de Oliveira, Robson Gonçalves Caldeira, Wadson da Silva Lopes

Bibliographic record

VenueABM Proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Research in Diverse Fields
Canadian institutionsArcelorMittal (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhysicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PDF | O Laminador 2 da ArcelorMittal Monlevade produz fio máquina, cuja principal aplicação está na indústria automobilística, em bitolas que variam de 5,5 mm a 44,0 mm e com velocidades que podem atingir 100 m/s. A alta velocidade na qual o Laminador é operado, associada ao grande número de montagens, contribui para o aumento do índice de sucata de linha. Além disso, o nível de qualidade superficial dos produtos exige uma maior freqüência de intervenções nos equipamentos, que poderão ocasionar a barra perdida. A metodologia utilizada na execução do projeto foi o PDCA, que permitiu identificar e otimizar os parâmetros operacionais de processo, bem como capacitar a equipe envolvida. O índice de sucata em 1990 era de 5,20%. No período entre 2001 e 2004, foi alcançado o estado de arte de controle de processo, quando se atingiu o índice de 0,10%. Neste período, foi identificada a necessidade de se realizar uma modernização eletrônica do Laminador e que, após a otimização e os ajustes dos parâmetros de operação e controle de processo, foi possível evoluir de uma taxa de 0,10% para 0,05%, com tendência positiva para 2009, colocando o Laminador 2 como uma das referências mundiais no controle deste índice.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueABM ProceedingsSame topicAcademic Research in Diverse FieldsFrench-language works237,207