MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018531100 · doi:10.1177/107754603030697

Optimization of Engine Mount Characteristics Using Experimental/Numerical Analysis

2003· article· en· W2018531100 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

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Noise and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVibrationExperimental dataMathematical modelEngineeringComputer scienceVibration isolationControl theory (sociology)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper an experimental/numerical technique is developed for engine mount optimization. The method is general and can be applied to optimize active and passive vibration isolators or absorbers in any mechanical systems or civil structures. Engine mount optimization techniques mostly rely on an accurate mathematical model of the whole vehicle, which in most cases is not available or is too difficult to develop. As a result, the current approach for selecting engine mounts for a vehicle is based upon trial and error which is very time-consuming and expensive. The proposed technique counts upon experimental data for optimization and does not require any mathematical model of the vehicle or its components. The required experiments are similar to the current trial-and-error based experiments performed on a vehicle for mounts selection. The method is evaluated experimentally using a quarter car model and the results corroborate the proposed optimization method.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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