MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244116842 · doi:10.1115/1.1951782

Dynamic Modeling and Experimental Testing of a Piano Action Mechanism

2005· article· en· W4244116842 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic Technology and Sound Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHammerAction (physics)PianoLeverMechanism (biology)EngineeringStructural engineeringComputer scienceMechanical engineeringPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model for a grand piano action is proposed in this paper. The multibody dynamic model treats each of the five main action components (key, whippen, jack, repetition lever, and hammer) as a rigid body, and incorporates a contact model to determine the normal and friction forces at 13 locations between each of the contacting bodies. All parameters in the model are directly measured from experiments on individual action components, allowing the model to be used as a prototyping tool for actions that have not yet been designed or built. The behavior of the model was compared to the behavior of an experimental grand piano action and found to be very accurate for high force blows, and reasonably accurate for low force blows.

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)0.000
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 score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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