MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417444117 · doi:10.1115/1.4033752

Modal Analysis of the Gyroscopic Continua: Comparison of Continuous and Discretized Models

2016· article· en· W2417444117 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 Applied Mechanics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscretizationPartial differential equationOrdinary differential equationMathematicsMathematical analysisInvariant (physics)GyroscopeDifferential equationModal analysisVibrationApplied mathematicsPhysicsMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vibrations of gyroscopic continua may induce complex mode functions. The continuous model governed by partial differential equations (PDEs) as well as the discretized model governed by ordinary differential equations (ODEs) are used in the dynamical study of the gyroscopic continua. The invariant manifold method is employed to derive the complex mode functions of the discretized models, which are compared to the mode functions derived from the continuous model. It is found that the complex mode functions constituted by trial functions of the discretized system yield good agreement with that derived by the continuous system. On the other hand, the modal analysis of discretized system demonstrates the phase difference among the general coordinates presented by trial functions, which reveals the physical explanation of the complex modes.

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 score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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