MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New Method for the Evaluation of Material Damping Using the Wavelet Transform

2010· article· en· W1982046253 on OpenAlexaff
Yanjun Yang, Giovanni Cascante, Maria Anna Polak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorlet waveletDamping ratioAttenuationAcousticsUltrasonic sensorWaveletStructural engineeringWavelet transformGeotechnical engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringVibrationPhysicsComputer scienceOpticsDiscrete wavelet transform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Material damping is a fundamental parameter required for dynamic analysis of geotechnical and civil infrastructure. The material damping ratio is very difficult to measure in situ. A new methodology for in situ measuring of material damping using surface waves is presented in this work. This methodology is successfully evaluated on laboratory scale models and numerical simulations. Ultrasonic waves are used in this work because of the size of the laboratory models. The output force of an ultrasonic piezoelectric transmitter is modeled by using a Morlet function. The wave attenuation and phase variation of propagating surface waves with distance are analyzed using the wavelet transform. Numerical results show that the material damping ratio calculated using the wavelet transform gives a global value that represents an average damping ratio for the frequency bandwidth imposed by the seismic or ultrasonic source. Experimental results, from tests on a cemented sand and a concrete plate, show good agreement with published damping values.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental EngineeringSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207