MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized gauging for tire–rim loading identification

2020· article· en· W3115758680 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Mechanics - A/Solids · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
FundersAssociation Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Instrumentation (computer programming)Process (computing)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsStrain gaugeComputer scienceInverseKey (lock)Task (project management)Fisher informationEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The determination of the tire–rim interface loadings is a difficult but key task for the aircraft wheel designer to predict the wheel service life. In conjunction with an optimal parameterization of these loadings previously defined by the authors, the optimal sensor placement problem is considered to identify the loading parameters at best. An optimization procedure of the wheel instrumentation, which consists of several strain gauges , is thus proposed to minimize the uncertainties of the sought parameters during the identification process. Two criteria are reviewed, namely, the determinant and the lowest eigenvalue of the Fisher information matrix , and different optimization procedures are assessed. The effectiveness of the method is proven considering the identification of an inflation case. The optimized instrumentations lead to drastically reduced uncertainties of the loading parameters and thus ensure reliable inverse identifications.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.222 · 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