{"id":"W2799988878","doi":"10.1139/tcsme-2005-0006","title":"COMPARISON OF TWO AUTO-TUNING METHODS FOR A VARIABLE STIFFNESS VIBRATION ABSORBER","year":2005,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Transactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering","topic":"Vibration Control and Rheological Fluids","field":"Engineering","cited_by":12,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"Lakehead University","funders":"","keywords":"Vibration; Dynamic Vibration Absorber; Robustness (evolution); Frequency response; Natural frequency; Control theory (sociology); Acoustics; Harmonic; Stiffness; Beam (structure); Computer science; Engineering; Structural engineering; Physics","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":false,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0003094077,0.0001277852,0.0002781556,0.00004220301,0.0001550262,0.00001478077,0.0001868119,0.000154446,0.0000561512],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00005015338,0.0001117094,0.0004054639,0.0002218241,0.00002205622,0.0001165509,0.000003404288,0.0001646505,3.167944e-7],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.0001625122,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.00008086947,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.0004035561,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.001443472,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9991816,0.00001153051,0.0003597713,0.0001146724,0.0000779339,0.0002545019],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9993307,0.0002643743,0.00003557009,0.0001672019,0.00008025475,0.0001219248],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_gemma":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_scores_codex":[0.000004129276,0.00001124893,7.585825e-7,0.0001011298,0.0001097398,4.201879e-9,0.0001293814,0.8139561,0.1626275,0.01472442,0.00008349994,0.00825208],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0005027174,0.00002282022,0.00001273481,0.00002799882,0.00009323713,6.404941e-7,0.00003018141,0.948113,0.0459714,0.0003983205,0.004710019,0.0001169474],"study_design_candidate":"simulation_or_modeling","study_design_consensus":"simulation_or_modeling","genre_codex":"methods","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.0009602044,0.0001515423,0.9975489,0.0003169232,0.0003862539,0.0004157669,0.00008342453,0.00009361962,0.00004332856],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.6334802,0.000002976755,0.366273,0.00004170803,0.00005254334,0.00007319004,0.00000658481,0.00002292557,0.00004691421],"genre_candidate":"methods","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.63252,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.4555376,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.02188121233264398,"score_gpt":0.2916479135401137,"score_spread":0.2697667012074697,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}