MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973146284 · doi:10.1115/omae2014-23397

A Procedure for Non-Linear Structural Collapse Analysis

2014· article· en· W1973146284 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
Canadian institutionsMartec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodComputer scienceKey (lock)Boundary (topology)Static analysisQuality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is a normal practice nowadays in structural engineering, including ships and offshore industry, to perform non-linear finite element analysis to assess the structure’s capacity for design or evaluation purposes. However, experience has shown that the quality and accuracy of the non-linear FE analysis results are highly dependent on the skill of the person performing the analysis and the analysis procedure used. The difference between results obtained by different people can be significant. In some cases, the results can be misleading. It is considered that a unified procedure is necessary. This paper is moving a step further and trying to develop a standard procedure which can provide a guideline for structural collapse analysis of stiffened panels under any load combinations. The paper provides the technical background on the analysis procedure and the key steps such as model extent, mesh density, initial imperfections, and boundary conditions. Analysis examples are provided in the paper for reference and discussions.

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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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