MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993293837 · doi:10.1243/03093247jsa608

Predicting the forming limit diagram of AA 5182-O

2010· article· en· W1993293837 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

VenueThe Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeckingForming limit diagramFinite element methodLimit (mathematics)DiagramMaterials scienceAluminiumStructural engineeringAlloyMechanicsComposite materialMathematicsMathematical analysisPhysicsEngineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prediction of a forming limit diagram (FLD) for aluminium alloy sheet using finite element analysis without implementing pre-defined geometrical imperfections or material imperfections is studied. The limit strains of the FLD are determined by applying a new proposed localization criterion in the dome stretching test. The elements just outside the necking area, where their major and minor principal strains have no simultaneous change after localized necking happens, are chosen as the reference elements for measurement of limit strains. Simulations are carried out for various strain paths ranging from balanced biaxial stretching to uniaxial stretching. The predicted FLD of AA 5182-O is compared with an experimentally determined FLD and very good agreement is achieved. It is demonstrated that FLDs can be predicted by the finite element method without requiring any assumed geometric or material imperfections in the numerical model.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
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