Lattice models in micromechanics
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Simulation or modelingConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: none
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.865
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.174 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
This review presents the potential that lattice (or spring network) models hold for micromechanics applications. The models have their origin in the atomistic representations of matter on one hand, and in the truss-type systems in engineering on the other. The paper evolves by first giving a rather detailed presentation of one-dimensional and planar lattice models for classical continua. This is followed by a section on applications in mechanics of composites and key computational aspects. We then return to planar lattice models made of beams, which are a discrete counterpart of non-classical continua. The final two sections of the paper are devoted to issues of connectivity and rigidity of networks, and lattices of disordered (rather than periodic) topology. Spring network models offer an attractive alternative to finite element analyses of planar systems ranging from metals, composites, ceramics and polymers to functionally graded and granular materials, whereby a fiber network model of paper is treated in considerable detail. This review article contains 81 references.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Applied Mechanics Reviews
- Topic
- Composite Material Mechanics
- Field
- Engineering
- Canadian institutions
- McGill University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- MicromechanicsTrussPlanarRigidity (electromagnetism)Lattice (music)Finite element methodFiber bundleStatistical physicsComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Materials sciencePhysicsStructural engineeringMathematicsFiberEngineeringComposite material
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes