MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086388996 · doi:10.2514/2.6880

Compact Methodology for Computing Limit-Cycle Oscillations in Aeroelasticity

2003· article· en· W2086388996 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAeroelasticityAerodynamicsLimit cycleLimit (mathematics)Finite element methodNonlinear systemReduction (mathematics)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Structural engineeringMathematicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A technique for computing limit-cycle oscillations of aeroelastic systems is presented. This technique can be used also for constructing and identifying reduced-order models that characterize accurately limit-cycle oscillations. The models presented use a spatial model reduction combined with a nonlinear identification technique. The finite difference in time method, a methodology similar to a finite element in time, is discussed. The specific novel aspects of the proposed method are noted. Numerical examples analyzing the dynamics of a panel forced by a buffeting aerodynamic load demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.268 · 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