MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energy-Absorbing Characteristics of the Stiffened Thin-Walled Tubes Subjected to Axial Crushing

2013· article· en· W2040269306 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Liang Dai, Xu Guang Li, Qing Chun Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringAxial symmetryBendingTube (container)Materials scienceComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Energy absorbing characteristics of the non-stiffened and stiffened single hat sections subjected to quasi-static axial crushing were experimentally investigated. First non-stiffened hat sections were axially crushed, then structures with different stiffened methods (stiffened in hat and stiffened in the plate) were tested, finally energy absorption capacities of these structures were compared. Test results showed that, for the appropriate designed stiffened tube, the mean crush force and mass specific energy absorption were increased significantly compared to the non-stiffened. Stiffened in hat section showed a little more energy absorption capacity than that stiffened in the plate, but the structure may sustain a global bending.

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 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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207