MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087518043 · doi:10.1115/pvp2008-61641

The Elastic Modulus Adjustment Procedure (EMAP) for Shakedown

2008· article· en· W2087518043 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 1: Codes and Standards · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHigh Temperature Alloys and Creep
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShakedownFinite element methodLinear elasticityStructural engineeringElastic modulusBar (unit)ModulusCylinderStress (linguistics)MathematicsMathematical analysisMaterials scienceEngineeringGeometryPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simple and systematic procedure is proposed for shakedown analysis using combination of linear and non-linear finite element analysis (FEA). The method can identify the boundary between the shakedown and ratcheting domains directly does not require a time history analysis (non-cyclic). The proposed method is based on elastic modulus adjustment procedure (EMAP) and non-cyclic elastic-plastic FEA. The aim of EMAP is to generate statically admissible stress distributions and kinematically admissible strain distributions. By modifying the local elastic moduli it is possible to obtain an inelastic-like stress redistribution. The method is first demonstrated with a two-bar structure model based on analytical routine. The analysis is then applied to some typical shakedown problems including the “classical Bree problem” and the “bi-material cylinder”.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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