MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229797535 · doi:10.4133/1.2923547

Evaluation of Linearity of First Mode of Vibration in Resonant Column Testing

2005· article· en· W4229797535 on OpenAlexaff
Zahid Khan, Giovanni Cascante, M. Hesham El Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005 · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinearityVibrationColumn (typography)Mode (computer interface)Materials scienceAcousticsElectronic engineeringComputer scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shear strain along the height of a specimen in resonant column testing (ASTM D4015‐92) is assumed to vary linearly when evaluating its dynamic shear modulus and damping ratio. To examine this assumption, specimens of dry sand, mine tailings, and cemented sand are tested at different confinement and shear strain levels. The coupling between the cemented‐sand specimen and the top and bottom platens is enhanced using three different agents: gypsum cement, Portland cement, and epoxy resin. The mode shapes are measured using a miniature accelerometer that is attached to the specimen at predefined elevations and a reference accelerometer placed at the top of the specimen (driving plate). The dynamic properties of the specimens are computed from the responses of both accelerometers. The measured mode shapes for dry sands and mine tailings are linear but the cemented‐sand specimen displayed a nonlinear behavior in terms of the mode shape and change in dynamic properties with the strain level. The accuracy of the measured mode shape and dynamic properties is improved as the coupling between the specimen and the platens is enhanced. The epoxy resin produced best coupling, followed by Portland and gypsum cements, with the latter two only effective at low confinement and strain level.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 2005Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207