MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dry Ice Cleaning of Electrical Equipment

2023· article· en· W4408899096 on OpenAlex
John Kay, Graham Green

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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical and Thermal Properties Analysis
Canadian institutionsKruger (Canada)Rockwell Automation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceDry iceDry cleaningComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringWaste managementComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dry ice blast cleaning originated in the aircraft industry when they were looking for alternative ways to strip paint off older aircraft, at that time. The technology did not become commercially available until around 1987. The dry ice cleaning process begins with the creation and use of pellet or granular shapes made from liquid Carbon Dioxide (CO<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</inf>).This type of cleaning method is non-abrasive and does no damage to the base substrate materials. Therefore, it can even be used on sensitive mechanical and electrical equipment. The process is not electrically conductive and can be safely used on electric motors and other electrical equipment.Dry ice exists as a liquid only when under very high pressure. When the pressure drops to near normal atmospheric pressure, approximately half of the dry ice turns back into a gaseous form and half turns to a solid. These solids, usually in the form of fluffy snow-like material, are then compressed to form dry ice blocks, pellets, or nuggets for use in the cleaning process.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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