MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401525675 · doi:10.1504/ijat.2024.10065935

Effects of Tool Geometry and Fluid on the Surface Morphology and Integrity in Scratching TiMMCs

2024· article· en· W4401525675 on OpenAlexaff
Marek Balazinski, Luc Baron, Zhongde Shi, Cécile Escaich

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Abrasive Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal and Thin Film Mechanics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScratchingMaterials scienceMorphology (biology)GeometrySurface (topology)Composite materialSurface integrityGeologyMathematicsSurface roughness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experimental study is reported on the surface morphology and integrity in scratching of TiMMCs. The objective is to simulate the cutting of TiMMCs by individual grains in grinding operations. The results can also be utilised to understand the resistance to abrasion and wear of the materials. Experiments were performed at a fixed scratching speed vs = 20 m/s, and given depths of scratching ranging from 0.004 to 0.024 mm. Scratching tools with round and conical tips were selected for the tests with and without grinding fluid. Microscopic observations of the tool tips and the scratches were conducted. It was revealed that ploughing of the matrix and the re-deposition of the matrix on the scratched surface led to the mixing of the matrix with broken TiC particles. The use of grinding fluid influenced the TiC removal mechanisms in terms of 'comet tail' phenomenon and different severities of the particle breakage. The depth of scratch had a greater effect on the cupules formation. Comparison of the bottom of the scratches and the ground surfaces showed that the wheel wear had significant effects on the ground surface morphology and integrity. No evidence of whole particle dislodgements was observed.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Abrasive TechnologySame topicMetal and Thin Film MechanicsFrench-language works237,207