MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979426851 · doi:10.1115/pvp2009-77860

Variational Method for Limit Load Analysis of Inhomogeneous Media

2009· article· en· W1979426851 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

VenueVolume 2: Computer Applications/Technology and Bolted Joints · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLimit loadLimit (mathematics)Upper and lower boundsLimit analysisFinite element methodContext (archaeology)ModulusStress (linguistics)MathematicsStructural engineeringMathematical analysisApplied mathematicsGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The load carrying capacity of a body with varying material properties (inhomogeneous) is investigated using the various lower and upper bound limit load multipliers in the context of varational principles originally proposed by Mura and co-workers. In order to evaluate the different limit load multipliers, Elastic Modulus Adjustment Procedure (EMAP) is used to obtain statically admissible stress and kinemattically admissible strain fields at a limit load stage. The proposed upper and lower bound limit load solutions are compared with the results obtained from inelastic finite element analysis (FEA) for several examples with two-dimensional and three-dimensional geometries.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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