MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054000228 · doi:10.1520/mpc20130066

Probabilistic Analysis of the Fatigue Crack Growth Based on the Application of the Monte-Carlo Method to Unigrow Model

2014· article· en· W2054000228 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 Performance and Characterization · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodParis' lawMaterials scienceProbabilistic logicFracture mechanicsProbability distributionProbabilistic analysis of algorithmsStructural engineeringMechanicsCrack closureStatisticsMathematicsComposite materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results obtained from the combination of the UniGrow fatigue crack growth model with Monte-Carlo simulation method. Four sets of available statistical fatigue crack growth data were used for the analysis. The material resistance to the fatigue crack propagation was modelled as a random input parameter while the geometry and loading conditions were kept deterministic. The measure of comparison was chosen to be the distribution of the number of cycles required to propagate the crack from a certain initial to the desired deterministic size. The difference between the “within specimen” and “from specimen to specimen” variability is assessed. Influence of the former on fatigue crack growth predictions is demonstrated to be negligible. It is shown that the probability distributions obtained from the numerical analysis closely resemble distributions obtained from the available experimental data.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.401
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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