The reliability of the frictional anti-loosening torque standards under challenging nonlaboratory conditions
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 efficiency of frictional anti-loosening fasteners depends on the sufficiency of their anti-loosening torque. The currently recommended values of the frictional anti-loosening torque (Tf) were determined under well-controlled conditions using DIN25201 or NAS3354 tests. However, the operational environment of bolted assembly can differ significantly from the laboratory settings, including the possibility of excessive clamping force, significant transverse displacement of the clamped bodies, and deviations from the fasteners’ nominal size. In the case of ordinary fasteners, these factors were proven to compromise loosening resistance. However, their effects on frictional fasteners’ performance have yet to be thoroughly explored. This study aimed to fill the gap. Our analytical and experimental results failed to demonstrate any significant impact of the transverse displacement and geometric deviations on loosening resistance, providing the frictional fasteners’ Tf was set to the recommended value. Thus, this study emphasizes the necessity to strictly follow the tightening standards, irrespective of the presumed unfavorable conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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