MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122713276 · doi:10.1115/1.4002090

Development and Validation of Geometry-Based Compliant Contact Models

2010· article· en· W2122713276 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

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodContact forceComputer scienceContact mechanicsContact geometryMechanical engineeringSimulationGeometryEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsPhysicsClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulations are often used to evaluate space manipulator tasks that involve contact with the environment, due to the difficulty of performing realistic earth-based experiments. An important aspect of these simulations is the contact model used to determine the interbody forces between two objects in contact. In this paper, we present two compliant contact models for polyhedral contacting objects. These models explicitly consider the distinction between true contact geometry and interference geometry. To account for the energy dissipated during impact, a damping force is included in the two models. Model validation is then performed in three ways: against analytical models, against experimental data, and against finite element method (FEM) models. The results of the validation exercise demonstrate the fidelity of the proposed models.

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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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