MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235312527 · doi:10.1504/ijvsmt.2017.10008920

Methodology for developing a neural network leaf spring model

2017· article· en· W4235312527 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

VenueInternational Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling and Testing · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkLeaf springEngineeringSpring (device)Network architectureNonlinear systemDisplacement (psychology)Control engineeringSelection (genetic algorithm)Experimental dataArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the development of a neural network that is able to emulate the vertical force-displacement behaviour of a leaf spring. Special emphasis is placed on aspects that affect the predictive capability of a neural network such as type, structure, inputs and ability to generalise. These aspects are investigated in order to enable the effective use of it to model leaf spring behaviour. The results show that with the correct selection of inputs and network architecture, the neural network's ability to generalise can be improved and also reduce the required training data. The resulting 2-15-1 feed-forward neural network is shown to generalise well and requires minimal data to be trained. Experimental data was used to train and validate the network. The methodology followed is not limited to the application of leaf springs only but should apply to various other applications especially ones with similar nonlinear characteristics.

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 score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.102 · 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