MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Improving operation of a drawing mill

2024· article· en· W4406391834 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIzvestiya Ferrous Metallurgy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Diagnostics and Reliability
Canadian institutionsEVRAZ (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillEngineering drawingEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The report considers the purpose of drawing mills and possible violations of the technological process associated with the design flaws of drawing mill drive. We analyzed the design of a planetary gearbox with a common carrier used in the drive of the stretching drum of a drawing mill. During the operation of such a transmission, there are disadvantages: due to the imbalance of links of the mechanism relative to the central axis, additional dynamic forces arise. This design transmits movement from the leading link to the carrier only through one satellite, the teeth of which perceive all the force transmitted by the torque, which reduces the reliability of the gearbox and the drive as a whole. The design of a three-satellite balanced self-aligning planetary gearbox, free from these disadvantages, is described.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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