MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082213389 · doi:10.1115/pvp2008-61618

Second Order Errors Related to Geometric Nonlinearity in Explicit Central Difference Operator

2008· article· en· W2082213389 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

VenueVolume 2: Computer Applications/Technology and Bolted Joints · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationNonlinear systemDisplacement (psychology)Stability (learning theory)Finite element methodOperator (biology)Integer (computer science)MathematicsTransient (computer programming)Applied mathematicsEnergy (signal processing)Control theory (sociology)Computer scienceMathematical analysisAlgorithmStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical analysis of nonlinear dynamic structures frequently makes use of the central difference method to step the transient forward in time. The method is particularly robust, accommodating material and geometric nonlinearities as well as contact surfaces and constraints of a very general nature. The implementation of the method is most usually performed according to [1], where velocity terms (or more generally rate quantities) are taken half a time step from the displacement and acceleration terms. It was recognized that a proper check of energy balance, requires that velocity must also be interpolated to the integer steps [2]. The stability and accuracy of the central difference method is well established, and decades of experience including its use in numerous commercial finite element codes confirms why it is the method of choice for explicit time integration of transients.

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 score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
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 head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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