MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2703562152 · doi:10.1299/jsmeoptis.2006.7.203

123 Optimal Design of Flexible Structures utilizing Enumeration Algorithms for Rigid Framework

2006· article· en· W2703562152 on OpenAlexaff
Takuya Kinoshita, Makoto Ohsaki, Naoki Katoh, Shin‐ichi Tanigawa, David Avis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Proceedings of OPTIS · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTopology Optimization in Engineering
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrussStatically indeterminateNonlinear systemBistabilityAlgorithmNonlinear programmingComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Bar (unit)Space (punctuation)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An efficient approach for generating pin-jointed compliant mechanisms is presented. A compliant mechanism uses the elastic deformation of structural parts to realize the mechanism for shape transformation of the entire structure, which is contrary to the conventional link mechanism. Ohsaki and Nishiwaki (Struct. Multidisc. Optim., Vol.30, pp.327-334, 2005) presented a method for generating flexible multistable bar-joint mechanisms using nonlinear programming approach. However, due to highly nonlinear property of the problem, the nonlinear programming problem should be solved many times with random initial solutions to obtain several types of mechanisms. Since the compliant pin-jointed mechanism is usually statically determinate, the optimization problem can be solved easily if the design space is limited to statically determinate structures. Avis et al. (Proc. of COCOON 2006, LNCS 4112, pp.205-215, 2006) presented an algorithm for enumerating all the non-crossing generically minimally rigid bar-joint frameworks, which are regarded as statically determinate trusses in structural engineering. In this paper, bistable mechanisms utilizing snapthrough behavior are obtained more efficiently with the algorithm. In the numerical example, many types of bistable compliant mechanisms are generated.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.548

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Proceedings of OPTISSame topicTopology Optimization in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207