MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101811205 · doi:10.1177/0021998310366062

Application of Response Sensitivity in Composite Processing

2010· article· en· W2101811205 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsSensitivity (control systems)CalibrationComputationComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Composite numberSoftwareProcess (computing)SuiteAlgorithmReliability engineeringMathematicsElectronic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article demonstrates the use of response sensitivities in numerical simulation of composite processing via four different application examples: real-time result validation, model calibration, reliability analysis, and optimization. The analyses are carried out with integrated simulation software with new response sensitivity capabilities. Notably, the response sensitivities are computed by the direct differentiation method. This is an efficient and accurate alternative to the finite difference approaches. A brief review of the derivation and implementation of sensitivity equations is provided. The primary objective of this article is to demonstrate and promote a suite of techniques to incorporate uncertainties into the simulation of the composite manufacturing process, facilitated by efficient sensitivity computations.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.297 · 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