MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Calibration of critical speed predictions using experimental measurements

2021· article· en· W3170753871 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin Dollon, Christine Monette, M Gagnon, Antoine Tahan, Jérôme Antoni

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGear and Bearing Dynamics Analysis
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecAndritz (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)CalibrationCritical speedComputationComputer scienceModalRotation (mathematics)BendingRotational speedModal analysisSimulationAlgorithmAcousticsStructural engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceFinite element methodMaterials sciencePower (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Experimental characterization of structures provides information about the real dynamic behavior of machineries. This results in a better estimation of dynamic stress levels, used to predict lifespan, reliability and optimal operating ranges. Experimental results can also be used to improve and calibrate simulations and calculations. In particular, calculation of shaft bending frequencies is needed to define the critical rotation speed. However, natural frequency computation requires a prior knowledge on many subcomponent properties, that are not precisely known in practice. This leads to a great uncertainty on the predicted critical speed. The purpose of this study is to use experimental in-situ measurements as a means to reduce uncertainties on physical properties of the shaft line and increase confidence in the prediction of natural frequencies and critical speed. This involves ambient modal analysis, calibration techniques and statistical approaches to gain insight on the true shaft physical properties.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicGear and Bearing Dynamics AnalysisFrench-language works237,207