ArticleScientific reports2025
Research on gear shaving error analysis based on knowledge graph.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The influencing factors of shaving-induced mid-profile concavity error and tooth profile errors are numerous and complex, yet they lack effective interconnections, resulting in severe siloization issues. Existing literature research and practical manufacturing data have primarily accumulated the relationship between the influence of individual factors on gear shaving error and stored in the form of text dispersed. These discrete knowledges can't be systematically integrated and utilized and individual factor influence mechanism can't be effectively shared, resulting in the failure to quantitatively differentiate between the factors of the role of the mechanism, while the unclear underlying mechanisms obstruct the fundamental revelation of the mapping relationship between shaving-induced mid-profile concavity error and tooth profile errors. To address this, this study derives computational formulas for the improved gear shaving tooth profile cutting depth error and shaving allowance, solving the gear shaving tooth profile cutting depth error and shaving allowance by the shaving cutting parameter (radial feed), and analyzing the influence law of radial feed on the gear shaving tooth profile cutting depth error and shaving allowance. Experimental results demonstrate that when the degree of overlap ranges from 1.3 to 1.9, and the axis intersection angle error falls within 0.2°~0.5°, selecting a radial feed of 44 ~ 50 μm simultaneously reduces tooth profile middle-concave error and tooth profile errors in workpiece gears. To resolve the lack of factor correlation, the Neo4j graph database was employed to construct a knowledge graph of influencing factors for shaving-induced mid-profile concavity error and tooth profile errors. This framework enables unified management of shaving error factors, the expression of correlations between knowledge entities, and relevant search and reasoning. It effectively resolves the issue of missing intrinsic connections among shaving error factors, realizes efficient retrieval and reasoning of knowledge regarding the intrinsic mechanism through which shaving error factors induce gear shaving errors, and thereby better facilitates the solution to tooth profile errors in shaving processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.