MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004449363 · doi:10.1121/1.3384524

Impact of damping uncertainty on sea model response variance.

2010· article· en· W2004449363 on OpenAlexaff
Noah H. Schiller, Randolph H. Cabell, Ferdinand W. Grosveld

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical energy analysisVariance (accounting)FuselageLoss factorUncertainty analysisCylinderDamping ratioDamping capacityMathematicsStatisticsStructural engineeringPhysicsAcousticsEngineeringVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistical energy analysis is commonly used to predict high-frequency vibroacoustic levels. This statistical approach provides the mean response over an ensemble of random subsystems that share the same gross system properties such as density, size, and damping. Recently techniques have been developed to predict the ensemble variance as well as the mean response. However these techniques do not account for uncertainty in the system properties. In the present paper uncertainty in the damping loss factor is propagated through the analysis to obtain more realistic prediction bounds that account for both ensemble and damping variance. The analysis is performed on a stiffened composite cylinder representative of an aircraft fuselage. Realistic bounds on the damping loss factor estimates are determined using measurements acquired on the stiffened composite cylinder in the lab. The analysis demonstrates that uncertainty in system properties, such as damping, should be considered when computing the variance of the response.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207