MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1878473118 · doi:10.4271/2009-01-0084

Prediction of Automotive Side Swing Door Closing Effort

2009· article· en· W1878473118 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

VenueSAE International Journal of Passenger Cars - Mechanical Systems · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsChrysler (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosing (real estate)SwingAutomotive industryAutomotive engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringBusinessMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">The door closing effort is a quality issue concerning both automobile designers and customers. This paper describes an Excel based mathematical model for predicting the side door closing effort in terms of the required minimum energy or velocity, to close the door from a small open position when the check-link ceases to function. A simplified but comprehensive model is developed which includes the cabin pressure (air bind), seal compression, door weight, latch effort, and hinge friction effects. The flexibility of the door and car body is ignored. Because the model simplification introduces errors, we calibrate it using measured data. Calibration is also necessary because some input parameters are difficult to obtain directly. In this work, we provide the option to calibrate the hinge model, the latch model, the seal compression model, and the air bind model. The door weight effect is geometrically exact, and does not need calibration. The capabilities and accuracy of the developed model are demonstrated using the front and rear doors of a production vehicle.</div>

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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