MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968603030 · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2935114

An Estimate Method of EPFM Constraint Parameter in 3D Cracked Structures for Sensor Structure Design

2019· article· en· W2968603030 on OpenAlexafffund
Ping Ding, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaChongqing Municipal Education CommissionChongqing Technology and Business University
KeywordsFinite element methodConstraint (computer-aided design)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionEstimation theoryStructural engineeringMaterials scienceComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmGeometryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An estimating method, which conveniently and quickly predicts solutions of constraint parameter A in J-A two-parameter approach of elastic-plastic fracture mechanics (EPFM), was developed and successfully applied on three-dimensional (3D) cracked structures under both uniaxial and biaxial loading condition. The method (estimate formula) forA value estimate was developed theoretically first. Then, based on the obtained numerical solutions of parameter A from finite element analysis (FEA), the coefficient values of the proposed estimate formula were determined for 3D single edge cracked plate (SECP) structures under both uniaxial and biaxial loading, to estimate solutions of parameter A for 3D SECP. Through comparing predicted parameter A values with their FEA numerical solutions from authors and other researchers, it is validated that the proposed estimating method can be used well to predict A values for thin 3D cracked structures. It enables the application of the EPFM J-A two-parameter approach on practical engineering structure analysis and design of sensor and other mechanical systems.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207