MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542316626 · doi:10.1063/1.1766609

On Effect of Material Parameters Used in Numerical Simulation of Forming Processes

2004· article· en· W1542316626 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthotropic materialWeightingComputer scienceExtension (predicate logic)Deformation (meteorology)RepeatabilityNoise (video)Test dataProcess (computing)Material propertiesMaterials scienceStructural engineeringFinite element methodComposite materialAcousticsMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a new methodology from which better material parameters may be identified. The method will account for both non‐repeatability of test data (by means of signal‐to‐noise weighting factors) and potential discrepancies between material parameters in different deformation modes (by means of a multi‐objective optimization process). Finally, to show the application of the method, test data for a 2×2 twill weave fabric from different modes (namely, uniaxial extension and bias‐extension) are selected to identify the model parameters of an orthotropic material model. The procedure may be applied to other material models and applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.222 · 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