MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022339515 · doi:10.1115/1.4047084

Quarter-Point Elements Are Unnecessary for the VCCT

2020· article· en· W3022339515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elad Farkash, Leslie Banks‐Sills

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Point (geometry)IsotropyHomogeneousClosure (psychology)MathematicsEconomicsPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The virtual crack closure technique (VCCT) is a well-established method for determining energy release rates and stress intensity factors in homogeneous, isotropic materials. It has been implemented with four-noded, eight-noded, quarter-point, and other higher order elements. It is most convenient and accurate when used with eight-noded, isoparametric elements. VCCT produces less accurate results when used with quarter-point elements. Yet, this method continues to be employed with quarter-point elements. It is strongly recommended to use VCCT with regular eight-noded elements. Three examples will be presented to illustrate the inaccuracy when using quarter-point elements with VCCT.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MechanicsSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207