MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W95242130 · doi:10.22260/isarc2003/0011

Procedure Design for Experiments Towards Modeling of the Cutting Force in Excavation of Bulk Media

2003· article· en· W95242130 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmad Hemami, Ferri Hassani

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... ISARC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutomationExcavationComputer scienceFunction (biology)Process (computing)Work (physics)DiggingPlan (archaeology)Mechanical engineeringIndustrial engineeringEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Procedure Design for Experiments Towards Modeling of the Cutting Force in Excavation of Bulk Media A. Hemami, F. Hassani Pages 111-117 (2003 Proceedings of the 20th ISARC, Eindhoven, Holland, ISBN 978-90-6814-574-8, ISSN 2413-5844) Abstract: The work discussed in this paper concerns automation of excavation or automation of loading particulate media by an excavating machine. Based on the analysis of the process, knowledge of the force of cutting/digging is required for feedback purposes. The lack of a reliable and well established model for the force in question dictates the primary work of the development of such a model. This interaction force is a function of a large number of parameters. Up to 32 parameters have been proposed. In addition to the large number of the parameters an analytical formulation of such a model is less likely possible, as can be seen from the past work. The complexity of the matter, therefore, calls for an empirical formulation, based on the results of experiments that must be carried out. This calls for a huge number of tests. It is important to reduce, as much as possible, the number of experiments to be performed. Also, if the material is categorized in a logical manner, various media can be prepared by mixtures of only a finite number of materials. The objective of the present paper is to define a generic function for the mathematical model and a plan for the tests that must be performed on soil type material. This leads to increased efficiency and helps to reduce duplications and unnecessary work before spending time on experiments. Based on this systematic approach the experiments can be arranged in a logical order, and the results can be later plugged in at their proper places. Keywords: Cutting/digging force, bulk media, model formulation, experiment DOI: https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC2003/0011 Download fulltext Download BibTex Download Endnote (RIS) TeX Import to Mendeley

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... ISARCSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207