MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2462758809

Development of a cellular automaton for a better consideration of neighborhood effect in polycrystals - Comparison with finite element method

2016· article· en· W2462758809 on OpenAlexaff
R. Bretin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe 7th International Conference on Computational Methods (ICCM2016) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMicrostructure and mechanical properties
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodElasticity (physics)Cellular automatonLinear elasticityFocus (optics)Materials scienceCrystalliteStructural engineeringMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringComposite materialAlgorithmMetallurgy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the development of a cellular automaton taking into account the effects of neighborhood in the mechanical behavior of polycrystals. This model aims to have a better estimate of the elastic stress / strain field in polycrystals than conventional analytical models, such as the self-consistent model (SCM). As a first step in the consideration of neighborhood effects, the model was developed in the case of a uniaxial loading in linear elasticity. A Kelvin structure is used to represent the polycrystal in order to negate any grain size and shape effect, in order to focus primarily on the influence of crystallographic orientations. The model has been developed based on the hypotheses from a Finite Element Method (FEM) study of the influence of a grain’s neighborhood on its behavior. FEM, SCM and the analytical model here presented are finally compared grain by grain after a simulation on polycrystalline aggregates of 686 grains using the Kelvin structure. Taking the FEM results as a reference, the results of our model show an approximation almost three times better than those of the SCM which show the importance of taking into account the neighborhood effect.

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 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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe 7th International Conference on Computational Methods (ICCM2016)Same topicMicrostructure and mechanical propertiesFrench-language works237,207