MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206714168 · doi:10.22215/etd/2020-14025

Development of Control Strategies and Testing Procedures for Suspension Seats Used in High Speed Craft

2020· dissertation· en· W4206714168 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Sorensen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftSuspension (topology)EngineeringShock (circulatory)VibrationControl (management)Work (physics)Test (biology)Marine engineeringAeronauticsComputer scienceMechanical engineeringGeographyMathematicsArtificial intelligencePhysicsGeologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work was to develop control strategies and testing procedures for the Slam Impact Seat Test Rig (SISTR). The SISTR was developed to more accurately test suspension seats for use in high speed craft (HSC). In general, HSC are defined as vessels which can achieve speeds higher than 30 knots, and are commonly used for search and rescue, law enforcement, and military operations. HSC are subject to extreme repeated shock and vibration loading and therefore so are their occupants. Therefore it is vital that the testing machines used to evaluate these seats can acurately reproduce the motion that HSCs are subjected to at sea. Development of control strategies involved developing and evaluating different types of motion control in order to accurately reproduce the desired motions. Once this was done, the user interface of the SISTR was developed to efficiently test different motions. A test procedure was then developed, which consisted of several types of impacts and other motions to represent what HSC experience at sea, as well as several benchmarking motions to demonstrate the capabilities of the SISTR. Compared to a conventional drop tower, the SISTR was able to more accurately reproduce HSC motion because it could directly control the position of the seat. Four different seats were tested using the SISTR, and the test results were processed to extract the overall damped natural frequencies and damping ratios of the seats.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207