MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995860759 · doi:10.1520/gtj11305j

Resonant Column Testing: The Inherent Counter EMF Effect

2003· article· en· W1995860759 on OpenAlexaff
Giovanni Cascante, J. Carlos Santamarina

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnical Testing Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectromotive forceElectromagnetic coilVoltageStiffnessMechanicsMaterials scienceExcitationColumn (typography)MagnetAcousticsPhysicsElectrical engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The standard magnet-coil driving system in resonant column devices provides the required cyclic excitation; however, it inherently produces a counter electromotive force that opposes the motion. In this study, the resonant column is modeled as an electro-mechanical system to quantitatively examine the counter electromotive effect and to explore its effect on resonant frequency and damping ratio computed from voltage-based measurements. The model is verified with two independent sets of experiments. Experimental and analytical results show that the measurement bias is more pronounced on the damping ratio than on the resonant frequency, the damping bias is not a device constant but varies with frequency, and the error is particularly relevant in low-loss and low-stiffness specimens (such as dry sands at low confinement). The electro-mechanical model permits developing device-specific correction charts that can be used to reexamine previously published damping ratio data gathered with voltage-based resonant column procedures.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
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

Citations42
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeotechnical Testing JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Underground StructuresFrench-language works237,207