MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311356623 · doi:10.18280/mmep.090529

Modelling and Analysis of the Cone Coupling Problem Using Optimization

2022· article· en· W4311356623 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mubina Nancy, S. Elizabeth Amudhini Stephen

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKarunya University
KeywordsHarmony searchParticle swarm optimizationAlgorithmMetaheuristicCoupling (piping)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coupling is a mechanism that transmits operative power between two shafts that are revolving at different speeds. A coupling connects two shafts at their ends and can slip or fail depending on the torque limit. It is an essential component of any power transmission system and may survive for a very long time if properly designed and maintained. This study's current research, a newly developed optimization algorithms are used to minimize the volume of cone coupling. The current study presented here compares modern metaheuristic methods for optimizing the design of the cone coupling problem. The algorithms used are particle swarm optimization (PSO), crow search algorithm (CSA), enhanced honeybee mating optimization (EHBMO), Harmony search algorithm (HSA), Krill heard algorithm (KHA), Pattern search algorithm (PSA), Charged system search algorithm (CSSA), Salp swarm algorithm (SSA), Big bang big crunch optimization (B-BBBCO), Gradient based Algorithm (GBA). The performance of these algorithms is assessed both statistically and subjectively. The algorithms' performance is evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively using consistency, simplicity and quality. The experimental results on the cone clutch problem shows that PSO produces greater results than EHBMO, whereas CSA and BBCO produce approximately identical results.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.193
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicElectric and Hybrid Vehicle TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207