MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005174755 · doi:10.1177/1099636212449851

Optimizing sandwich beams for strength and stiffness

2012· article· en· W2005174755 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sandwich Structures & Materials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsStiffnessMaterials scienceIndentationBending stiffnessStructural engineeringBeam (structure)BendingMaxima and minimaSandwich-structured compositeComposite materialCore (optical fiber)Point (geometry)Flexural strengthRange (aeronautics)Specific modulusComposite numberGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a method for minimizing structural mass by optimizing the geometry and core density of sandwich beams comprising composite face sheets and polymer foam cores, loaded in three-point bending. The optimization is constrained by both strength and stiffness requirements. All possible locations in design space which might be global minima of mass are identified, and it is shown that, for a global minimum mass, at least two constraints must be simultaneously active. Calculations for a typical set of material properties are performed with the result that, for a wide range of standard materials, a minimum-mass sandwich beam satisfying both strength and stiffness requirements utilizes low-density foam and is constrained by stiffness and indentation strength.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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