MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334920724 · doi:10.1115/pvp2003-1887

Lower Bound Limit Load Determination: The mβ-Multiplier Method

2003· article· en· W2334920724 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiplier (economics)Upper and lower boundsMathematicsLimit loadLimit (mathematics)Mathematical analysisSensitivity (control systems)Stress (linguistics)Linear elasticityApplied mathematicsFinite element methodPhysicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existing lower bound limit load determination methods that are based on linear elastic analysis such as the classical and mα-multiplier methods have a dependence on the maximum equivalent stress. These methods are therefore sensitive to localized plastic action, which occurs in components with thin or slender construction, or those containing notches and cracks. Sensitivity manifests itself as relatively poor lower bounds during the initial elastic iterations of the elastic modulus adjustment procedures, or oscillatory behavior of the multiplier during successive elastic iterations leading to limited accuracy. The mβ-multiplier method proposed in this paper starts out with Mura’s inequality that relates the upper bound to the exact multiplier by making use of the “integral mean of yield.” The formulation relies on a “reference parameter” that is obtained by considering a distribution of stress rather than a single maximum equivalent stress. As a result, good limit load estimates have been obtained for several pressure component configurations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.264 · 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