An efficient method for system reliability analysis of planar mechanisms
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents an efficient method for system reliability analysis of planar mechanisms with random dimensions and joint clearances. The reliability of the mechanism is defined as the probability that the output error remains within a specified limit in the entire target trajectory of the mechanism. Since the currently used methods for system reliability analysis are approximate in nature, this article presents a more efficient and innovative method based on the minimum cross-entropy principle for probabilistic analysis used in the information theory. The mechanism reliability problem is formulated as a series system reliability analysis that can be solved using the distribution of maximum output error. To derive this distribution, fractional moments of the output error are estimated from a small simulated sample of trajectories of mechanism motion which serve as constraints in the minimization of cross entropy. The proposed method is illustrated by analyzing the reliability slider–crank and a four-bar function generator. The comparison of the results with those obtained from the Monte Carlo simulations confirms the high accuracy of the proposed method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it