MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996943853 · doi:10.1088/1361-665x/ab6694

Robust lightweight multifunctional thermally tailored lattices

2019· article· en· W2996943853 on OpenAlexaff
Marina M. Toropova, Craig A. Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueSmart Materials and Structures · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComputer scienceDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents conceptual designs for lightweight lattices that are able to connect two materials with differing coefficients of thermal expansion without generating thermal expansion mismatch stresses during temperature excursions. The lattices operate passively at ambient conditions to accommodate large variations of temperature and to provide constant separation, independent of temperature, between the substrate materials. When pin-connected, the lattices are free from thermal mismatch stresses both internally and at their connections with the substrates. However, previous configurations of these lattices are highly sensitive to small perturbations in geometry, as would be associated with thermal expansion or manufacturing imperfections, and hence must be designed giving consideration to such phenomena. Hence, sensitivity analysis must be a factor in the design process. To show that such sensitivity analyses can be carried out using theoretical approaches, experimental results are presented that are in accord with the theoretical calculations. Several examples are given to demonstrate strategies for reducing lattice sensitivity to geometric imperfections for different combinations of material and geometry. More importantly, novel alternative designs for lattices using simpler configurations, which are less sensitive to small perturbations, are explained. These alternative lattices employ less complicated geometry and, in some cases, require only one material, but offer less adaptibility in the situations to which they are applicable.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSmart Materials and StructuresSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207