MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966063805 · doi:10.1115/1.3173667

Modeling Impacts Between a Continuous System and a Rigid Obstacle Using Coefficient of Restitution

2009· article· en· W1966063805 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoefficient of restitutionImpulse (physics)ObstacleRestitutionCollocation methodModalEquations of motionImpulse responseComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)MechanicsApplied mathematicsMathematicsMathematical analysisDifferential equationClassical mechanicsOrdinary differential equationPhysicsMaterials scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we discuss the limitations of the existing collocation-based coefficient of restitution method for simulating impacts in continuous systems. We propose a new method for modeling the impact dynamics of continuous systems based on the unit impulse response. The developed method allows one to relate modal velocity initial conditions before and after impact without requiring the integration of the system equations of motion during impact. The proposed method has been used to model the impact of a pinned-pinned beam with a rigid obstacle. Numerical simulations are presented to illustrate the inability of the collocation-based coefficient of restitution method to predict an accurate and energy-consistent response. We also compare the results obtained by unit impulse-based coefficient of restitution method with a penalty approach.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.202 · 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