MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976422371 · doi:10.1177/1045389x08093563

Review and Comparison of Hysteresis Models for Magnetostrictive Materials

2008· article· en· W1976422371 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

VenueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetostrictionTerfenol-DMagnetMaterials scienceHysteresisMagnetic fieldActuatorMagnetizationNonlinear systemMagnetic hysteresisDisplacement (psychology)Smart materialInverse magnetostrictive effectStress (linguistics)Mechanical engineeringAcousticsMechanicsCondensed matter physicsComposite materialEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The modeling of magnetization in magnetostrictive materials is studied in this article. Magnetostrictive materials elongate in the presence of a magnetic field, and can be useful as actuators. These materials are highly nonlinear, and hence, difficult to control. Accurate models are important to the development of stabilizing controllers with good performance. Here, Terfenol-D, a commonly used magnetostrictive material, is studied. A setup is designed to measure magnetic flux density and stress applied to a Terfenol-D sample. Displacement, electrical current sent to a magnet generating the requested magnetic field, and temperature at different locations are measured. Using experimental data, the Preisach, homogenized energy, and Jiles—Atherton models are evaluated. For each model, the parameters are identified for Terfenol-D. The ease of use and accuracy of these models in the prediction of Terfenol-D behavior are compared.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.240 · 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