MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030040017 · doi:10.2514/2.2033

Force Method Revisited

2003· article· en· W2030040017 on OpenAlexaff
Ramin Sedaghati, Afzal Suleman

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodCompatibility (geochemistry)GaussForce field (fiction)Classical mechanicsStructural mechanicsContinuum mechanicsStructural engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceApplied mathematicsPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computational mechanics is an important field in engineering with a strong foundation in continuum mechanics and finite element analysis. The standard and integrated force methods are reviewed, and a structural analysis technique using the finite element force method based on the complementary strain energy is proposed. Similar to the standard force and the integrated force methods, the force method based on the complementary strain energy uses the same equilibrium equations. However, the compatibility conditions are satisfied through the complementary strain energy. The Gauss elimination technique has been employed successfully to generate automatically a basis determinate structure and redundant members. Extension of the force method to dynamics and benchmark problems with displacement-stress and frequency constraints are presented.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.008

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207