Pycnometric-Additive Determining of the Degree of Coating of High-Strength Synthetic Diamond Grinding Powders using the Actual 3D Morphology of their Grains
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
The methodological components of direct and indirect analytical determining of the degree of coating of synthetic diamond grinding powders are analyzed. It has been established that the weight method most used in practice for determining this technological property of grinding powder is not universal for different methods of applying the coating. More universal in this regard, as the review of publications showed, is the well-known indirect-analytical method based on the pycnometric-additive approach. An improved variant of this method is proposed, aimed at application to high-strength synthetic diamond grinding powders. The method takes into account the peculiarities of the 3D morphology of the grains of such powders. Using the example of grinding powder AC300 500/400, the grains of which were coated with a solution of a mixture of boron oxide, sodium silicate, and titanium carbide, the advantages of using the proposed method are illustrated. The results of a comparison of determining the degree of coating by a known method and its improved variant are presented.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it