MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968256635 · doi:10.1177/0306419019868801

A systematic approach for modeling multi-physics systems

2019· article· en· W2968256635 on OpenAlexafffund
Clarence W. de Silva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)Domain modelComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Focus (optics)Physical systemRealization (probability)Domain engineeringArtificial intelligenceDomain knowledgePhysicsMathematicsSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An engineering system may consist of several different types of components, belonging to such physical “domains” as mechanical, electrical, fluid, and thermal. It is termed a multi-domain (or multi-physics) system. In developing an analytical model of a multi-physics system, it is advantageous to use “unified” and “integrated” procedures for formulating different physical domains while including inter-domain dynamic interactions, in a systematic manner that will lead to a “unique” (single) model having physically meaningful variables. Such a model formulation is the focus of the present paper. In this context, a generalized method to incorporate impedance (e.g., the analogous use of mobility in the mechanical domain), exporting the modeling procedures from one domain into a different domain, conversion of a system in one domain into another domain, and realization of an equivalent single-domain model for a multi-domain system are addressed. This knowledge is useful in education, research, and application of multi-physics models of engineering dynamic systems. Illustrative examples are provided to clarify the presented approaches. This paper assumes a knowledge in linear graphs and some background material, as presented in the prior work of the author. The relevant nomenclature is listed at the end of the paper.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mechanical Engineering EducationSame topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207