MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079311291 · doi:10.1615/ichmt.2004.rad-4.80

APPLICATION OF PARAMETRIC SURFACE REPRESENTATION TO EVALUATING FORM FACTORS AND LIKE QUANTITIES

2004· article· en· W2079311291 on OpenAlexaff
K.G.T. Hollands

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametric statisticsConstruct (python library)Representation (politics)Computer scienceSurface (topology)Point (geometry)Basis (linear algebra)SoftwareFactor (programming language)Surface integralSample (material)Parametric equationApplied mathematicsAlgorithmAlgebra over a fieldCalculus (dental)MathematicsIntegral equationMathematical analysisProgramming languageGeometryPure mathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematical software packages like Mathcad and Mathematica have now reached the point where they can be routinely used to evaluate multiple integrals like the ones that arise in form factor evaluation, and this provides a new mechanism for form factor evaluation. On the other hand, before starting such numerical evaluation one must first construct the definite integral, and this is not always straightforward. The present paper demonstrates how representing the surfaces parametrically simplifies the construction of the integral and provides the basis for a standardized procedure. The paper gives a catalogue of parametric representations of some typical surfaces in arbitrary orientations and locations, and demonstrates the use of the catalogue on some sample problems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207