MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921538393 · doi:10.1115/1.4043086

Multi-Objective Model Updating Optimization Considering Orthogonality

2019· article· en· W2921538393 on OpenAlexaff
Braden T. Warwick, Il Yong Kim, Chris K. Mechefske

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonalityDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Multi-objective optimizationComputer scienceMathematical optimizationProcess (computing)Pareto principleFinite element methodAlgorithmMathematicsControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringGeometryPhysicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coordinate orthogonality check (CORTHOG) and multi-objective optimization considering pseudo-orthogonality as an objective function are introduced to overcome several limitations present in current model updating methods. It was observed that the use of the CORTHOG to remove four inaccurate degrees-of-freedom (DOF) was able to increase the orthogonality between mode shape vectors. The multi-objective model updating process generated a Pareto front with 38 unique optimal solutions. Four critical points were identified along the Pareto front, of which decreased the natural frequency error by greater than 2.84% and further increased the orthogonality between mode shape vectors. Therefore, it has been demonstrated that both steps of the methodology are critical to significantly reduce the overall errors of the system and to generate a finite element (FE) model that best describes physical reality. Additionally, the methodology introduced in this work generated a feasible computational runtime allowing for it to be easily adapted to widespread applications.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear DynamicsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207