MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991868322 · doi:10.1109/cdc.2014.7039442

Comparison of stabilization of current-actuated and voltage-actuated piezoelectric beams

2014· article· en· W1991868322 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
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltageControl theory (sociology)Current (fluid)PiezoelectricityBeam (structure)PhysicsOperator (biology)Bernoulli's principleMechanicsAcousticsComputer scienceControl (management)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current controlled piezoelectric beams have become increasingly popular recently. The authors have used a variational approach derive the model for a single piezoelectric beam actuated by a current source at the electrodes, and similarly for the voltage-controlled case. Magnetic effects are included. In addition to the Euler-Bernoulli displacement assumptions for the mechanical part, electrical and magnetic vector potential terms are assumed to be quadratic-through thickness, not linear. Inclusion of magnetic effects significantly changes the stabilizability properties of the model. The voltage-controlled beam leads to a control operator that is unbounded in the energy space, while the current-controlled case leads to a bounded control operator. The two situations are compared from a control perspective.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207