Bibliographic record
Abstract
The «Oberst beam» is a classical method for the characterization of damping material based on a multilayer cantilever beam (base beam + one or two layers of other materials). As the base beam is made of a rigid and lightly damped material (steel, aluminum), the most critical aspect of this method is to properly excite the beam without adding weight or damping. So, exciting the beam with a shaker is not recommended because of the added mass. Alternative solutions are suggested such as electro-magnetic noncontacting transducer (tachometer pick-up, for example) can provide a good excitation but it is limited to ferro-magnetic materials. As aluminum and stainless-steel are widely used for the base beam, a small bits of magnetic material must be fastened adhesively to achieve specimen excitation. This method creates two other problems. The first one is the difficulty to properly measure the excitation force and the second one is the added damping due to the magnetic materials bits in the case of non-magnetic base beam. However, the measurement of the motion of the beam can be easily made using a non-contact transducer (a laser vibrometer for example).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".