MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989101475 · doi:10.1139/x03-250

Finite element modeling of guyed back spars in cable logging

2004· article· en· W1989101475 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Saravi, C. Kevin Lyons

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTree Root and Stability Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkylineStructural engineeringTension (geology)Finite element methodStress (linguistics)Compression (physics)Transverse planeDisplacement (psychology)Point (geometry)BendingComputer scienceEngineeringGeometryMathematicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study a finite element model of a back spar system was developed with three guylines opposing the skyline strap tension. In this paper the allowable skyline strap tension is the tension in the skyline strap that results in the maximum normal stress on a transverse cross section of the tree being equal to an assumed allowable stress. An iterative routine was developed to find the allowable skyline strap tension, and this routine was found to converge rapidly from initial values that were below and above the allowable skyline strap tension. Two algorithms were developed for finding the maximum normal stress on a transverse cross section of a tree, method 1 and method 2. If the plane that the tree displaced in was known a priori, then method 2 could be used, and it was found to be less sensitive to mesh coarseness. If the plane that the tree displaced in was not known a priori, then method 1 had to be used with a less coarse mesh. It was found that the stress concentrations due to simplified cable connections were not significant for rigging configurations that allowed a larger rigging point displacement. The rigging configurations that allowed larger rigging point displacements have stress fields that are dominated by bending, while for rigging configurations that allow only small rigging point displacements, the stress fields are dominated by axial compression.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.298
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree Root and Stability StudiesFrench-language works237,207