MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7083024779 · doi:10.4224/40003715

Bearing test rig oil flow calibration

2000· report· en· W7083024779 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2000
Typereport
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationBearing (navigation)Offset (computer science)TurbineMetreFlow measurementOil supplyMeasuring instrumentVolumetric flow rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Institute for Aerospace Research has recently commissioned a rig for testing rolling element turbine bearings up to a shaft speed of 36000 RPM. Oil can be supplied to the bearing through the inner race or through a number of jets adjacent to the bearing. The rate at which the oil flows is an important measurement that must be made during a test. To measure the oil flow, a turbine flowmeter was installed in the oil supply line. Initially, the turbine meter was calibrated using an OT-150 ballistic flowmeter calibrator located in the laboratory. However, a 2% offset was observed during a calibration check that was performed with a weigh scale and stopwatch. It was anticipated that the variation in the viscosity (~1 at 20°C) of the fluid used in the OT-150 calibrator relative to the oil (~5 at 100°C) was the primary cause of the offset (Baker, 1991). As no reliable correction method could be found from a literature search, an in-situ calibration was performed on the rig with the use of the weigh scale and stopwatch. This report summarizes the calibration method and includes an uncertainty assessment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.006

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→