MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283833039 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090302

Determination of Two Homogeneous Materials in a Bar with Solid-Solid Interface

2022· article· en· W4283833039 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guillermo Federico Umbricht, Domingo A. Tarzia, Diana Rubio

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods in inverse problems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchEuropean Commission
KeywordsThermal conductivityBar (unit)Homogeneity (statistics)MechanicsBoundary value problemWork (physics)Materials scienceHeat transferThermalConvectionConstant (computer programming)ThermodynamicsMathematical analysisComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, a bar fully insulated on its lateral surface. composed by two different unknown materials is considered. For the analytical solution, it is assumed a perfectly assembly solid-solid interface, so no heat loss due to friction is present. This is an ideal scenario, so this loss and possible measurement errors are included by simulating noisy data for the estimation of the thermal conductivity of the unknown materials. A stationary heat transfer process along the bar is considered where a Dirichlet condition is imposed at the left that represents a source of constant temperature. At the other end of the bar, a Robin condition that models heat dissipation by convection, is assumed. The constant thermal conductivity coefficients of both solids are determined under two different situations: a) two noisy temperature measurements are available, one at the interface and the other at the right boundary; b) a temperature measurement at the interface and a heat flow measurement at the right edge of the bar are given. The bounds for the errors in the identification of the unknown coefficients are obtained based on the data measurements, the room temperature and temperature values at the boundary and interface. Numerical examples are given to illustrate the ideas used for the parameter identification and elasticity analysis is carried out to measure the dependence of the data on the estimated parameters.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicNumerical methods in inverse problemsFrench-language works237,207