MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157784407 · doi:10.18280/mmep.080211

A Nonstationary Mathematical Model for Acceleration Time Series

2021· article· en· W3157784407 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tahar Brahimi, Tahar Smain

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccelerationSeries (stratigraphy)Autoregressive modelDisplacement (psychology)Nonlinear systemTime seriesAutoregressive–moving-average modelMoving-average modelAutocorrelationMathematicsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceAutoregressive integrated moving averageEconometricsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The choice of nonstationary stochastic models for the study is fully justified by the limitation of acceleration time series number. The three acceleration time series under consideration are used to generate a new, artificial series of ten per historical one using autoregressive moving average model. Subsequently, the average of nonlinear is utilized for the ten acceleration time series in order to obtain the spectral response of a system with single degree of freedom. Modeling of acceleration time series involves critical estimation of metrics that characterize nonstationary acceleration time series. Thus, for the stiffness degrading systems and bilinear systems, the metrics of hysteretic energy demand and displacement ductility demand during displacement are used. The applicability of artificially generated acceleration time series for the qualitative description of information was shown. More specifically, ARMA (2,2) showed the best results in the study for three accelerated time series through nonlinear response analysis. In addition, as a result, normalized hysteretic energy demand, empirically valid displacement ductility relationships, and model parameters were proposed.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207