MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Suitable Criterion for Precise Determination of Incipient Necking in Sheet Materials

2006· article· en· W2035637474 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

VenueMaterials science forum · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Forming Simulation Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeckingFormabilityInflection pointMaterials scienceStrain rateStrain (injury)Forming limit diagramLimit (mathematics)DiagramMechanicsComposite materialMathematical analysisMathematicsGeometryPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forming limit diagram (FLD) is a measure of the formability of a sheet material. The major-minor strain pairs that are closest to the neck on multiple specimens of various strain paths are utilized to construct a boundary between safe and unsafe zones. The challenge to obtain the FLD is the determination of incipient necking. Three approaches to determine the limit strains have been investigated and compared in this research in order to establish the optimal one for implementation: (1) commonly used Bragard criterion ( 1)e Br with periodic grids; (2) tracking the region of large local strains from strain history to locate the instance when critical major strain ( 1)e cr happens; (3) post-processing of strain history to locate the inflection in the major strain rate curve 1 max (e&&) at the onset of localization. The last criterion of inflection in strain rate 1 max (e&&) carries both a numerical and a physical meaning towards developing an understanding of flow localization, formability and fracture.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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