MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800671551 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2000-0004

OPTIMIZATION-BASED SYNTHESIS OF A DEEP-DIGGING TILLAGE MECHANISM

2000· article· en· W2800671551 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Scott Nokleby, Ron P. Podhorodeski

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shanno algorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmFunction (biology)MinificationVariable (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quasi-Newton optimization method is employed to synthesize a four-bar tillage mechanism, a device for loosening the sub-soil in farm fields. The synthesis routine uses sequential parameter transformations that map from an unconstrained search variable space to a constrained design variable space. The sequential parameter transformations ensure that only a specific mechanism sub-type is considered, that Grashof criteria are satisfied, and that all mechanism parameters satisfy specified upper and lower constraints. Objective functions quantifying the level of satisfaction of the desired task displacements are minimized. It is shown that in addition to task satisfaction, further objective function terms can be added. The addition of objective function terms to increase the minimum transmission angle and to reduce the mechanism size are found to allow the synthesis of a practical mechanism for the deep-digging application. The use of the Broyden-Fletcher-Goldfarb-Shanno (BFGS) method with Fletcher’s Line Search (FLS) algorithm has allowed for the development of an efficient optimization-based synthesis routine. The synthesis results demonstrate that the developed synthesis routine required on the order of 10 2 fewer iterations per start then the direct-search and Sequential Unconstrained Minimization Technique (SUMT) employed in a previous method.

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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicSoil Mechanics and Vehicle DynamicsFrench-language works237,207