MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055132895 · doi:10.1115/imece2008-66041

Diagnosing Irregularities of Nonlinear Dynamic Systems With Implementation of Periodicity-Ratio

2008· article· en· W2055132895 on OpenAlexaff
Liming Dai, Guoqing Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicChaos control and synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNonlinear systemChaoticMotion (physics)Oscillation (cell signaling)VibrationControl theory (sociology)Nonlinear dynamical systemsPeriodic functionComputer scienceMathematical analysisPhysicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsArtificial intelligenceAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Among the irregular responses of nonlinear dynamic systems, chaotic responses of nonlinear systems are probably the most attractive phenomena along with the new observations in the last decades. A nonlinear deterministic system may behavior chaotically under regular such as periodic excitations. Regular motion of a system subjected to periodic exertions is usually periodic. In contrast with regular motions, final states of chaotic vibrations are extremely nonperiodic. This research is to analyzing the irregular behavior of dynamic systems with implementation of a newly developed criterion named Periodicity-Ratio. The development of a methodology for diagnosing the irregular motions from the regular motions of a dynamic system is presented. The Periodicity-Ratio describes the degree of periodicity of motion and can be conveniently used to distinguish a nonperiodic motion from a regular vibration or oscillation and to diagnose whether or not a motion is chaotic and the other irregular responses of the nonlinear dynamic systems, without plotting any figures. The analyses on the irregular behavior of nonlinear dynamic systems with the implementation of the Periodicity-Ratio will be demonstrated.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.478
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChaos control and synchronizationFrench-language works237,207