MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Computation of Response Sensitivities for Inelastic Structures

2006· article· en· W2162776646 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 Structural Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussComputationFinite element methodSensitivity (control systems)Structural engineeringComputer scienceFrame (networking)Reinforced concreteAlgorithmEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response sensitivities with respect to the parameters of a finite element model are useful in many applications. The direct differentiation method (DDM) is commonly utilized to obtain such results. In recent years, the DDM has been extended to include sensitivities of inelastic response with respect to material, load, and geometry parameters. While the DDM is more efficient and accurate than finite difference methods, considerable cost is still associated with the computation of response sensitivities for inelastic problems. In this paper it is demonstrated that the computational cost can be significantly reduced for certain types of problems that are common in structural engineering. A novel event-based computation strategy is suggested, whereby sensitivities of the final response are obtained more efficiently than in the ordinary DDM. It is also demonstrated that sensitivity contributions from all inelastic material points are not needed for statically determinate structures. Numerical examples involving a truss structure, a steel frame structure, and a reinforced concrete frame structure are presented to demonstrate the efficiency of the presented developments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
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