MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Model Comparisons of a Partially Strengthened Flexible Beam

2010· article· en· W2319351752 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

VenueInternational Journal of Modelling and Simulation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeam (structure)Timoshenko beam theoryActuatorBoundary value problemRayleigh–Ritz methodTorqueEquations of motionControl theory (sociology)MechanicsPhysicsMathematicsClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringMathematical analysisEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, three modelling theories for a partially strengthened beam are compared. The effect of an actuator with large force capability on the natural frequencies and mode shapes of the beam is studied. More specifically, three modelling techniques, namely Euler–Bernoulli, Rayleigh–Ritz, Timoshenko beam theories in conjunction with the generalized Hamilton's principle are utilized to derive the equation of motion and the boundary conditions of a partially actuated beam. The effect of the actuator is considered as an external torque on the sub-boundary conditions. A solution for the resulting equations for each modelling technique is obtained and a model of the beam strengthened with the actuator is derived. To evaluate the accuracy of each model, simulation results are compared to those experimentally obtained from a beam.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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