MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579629960 · doi:10.1002/9781119379126.ch1

Introduction to Structural Optimization

2016· other· en· W2579629960 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

VenueBiomechanics · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTopology optimizationSizingMathematical optimizationShape optimizationTopology (electrical circuits)Optimization problemComputer scienceDiscrete optimizationMathematicsEngineeringFinite element methodStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents the principles of the three main groups of structural optimization along with numerical applications for each group. A modern theory of structural optimization is based on the concepts of mathematical programming and sensitivity analysis. It was mainly limited to the sizing optimization of trusses or gantries. Thus, sizing optimization of structures was the first field of application for optimality criteria. With sizing optimization, people can modify the cross-section or transverse thickness of the components of structure whose shape and topology are fixed. Sizing optimization can be performed by considering the same topology to produce various dimensions. With shape optimization, it is possible to make changes to the shape, provided they are compatible with a predetermined topology. Conventional shape optimization modifies the parametric representation of the boundaries of the domain. It involves varying the coordinates of the connecting points between the bars to minimize one or more objectives under certain conditions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.199 · 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