MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611441108 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2005-0022

A TUTORIAL PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO THE FLEXIBLE BEAM ON RIGID CART PROBLEM

2005· article· en· W2611441108 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Robert Langlois, Ronald J. Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDynamics and Control of Mechanical Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRigid bodyPlanarBeam (structure)ModalFinite element methodMultibody systemSuperposition principleComputer scienceCantileverModal analysisEquations of motionRigid body dynamicsDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Mechanical systemMathematicsClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringMathematical analysisPhysicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A classical planar problem in forward flexible multibody dynamics is thoroughly investigated. The system consists of a damped flexible beam cantilevered to a rigid translating cart. The problem is solved using three distinctly different conventional approaches presented in roughly the chronological order in which they have been applied to flexible dynamic systems. First, a modal superposition formulation based on Bernoulli-Euler beam theory is developed. Second, an alternative solution is developed drawing exclusively on methods for rigid body dynamics combined with a knowledge of the theoretical modal behaviour of continuous beams. Third, a formulation based on the conventional finite element method using four-degree-of-freedom planar beam elements is adapted to include the rigid body motion of the cart. The relative merits of the three formulations are discussed and numerical simulation results generated using each of the three formulations are compared with each other and with a solution from a general-purpose flexible multibody dynamics formulation that is briefly outlined. The relative accuracy and efficiency of the methods and the challenges associated with generalizing each formulation are discussed.

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)0.000
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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicDynamics and Control of Mechanical SystemsFrench-language works237,207