MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090262277 · doi:10.5539/mer.v2n1p44

Design of Innovative Web Structures Based on Spider Web Optimality Analysis

2012· article· en· W2090262277 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueMechanical Engineering Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser and Thermal Forming Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProduct (mathematics)Finite element methodFrame (networking)Fuzzy logicMechanical engineeringStructural engineeringEngineering drawingIndustrial engineeringEngineeringMathematicsGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study the basic mechanics and engineering principles are applied find out possible reasons for the optimality of a typical spider web. Physical models are formulated connecting the external loads to internal loads and with geometry and materials. Then optimum design methodology using fuzzy goal of maximising the product of satisfactions on chosen decision variables is applied to design a web. The decision variables are three. The first is web material volume which is defined using the FSD principle, the second is catch area, and the third is desirability to maintain only tensile forces. The optimal analytical and FEM model results agree well with experimental data in large side frame forces and less well in inner guy forces. Some industrial application possibilities are discussed.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.273 · 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