MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379746373 · doi:10.32920/23327438

Design of a Morphable Rib for a Flexible Trailing Edge

2023· preprint· en· W4379746373 on OpenAlexaff
Vivek Dindayal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingFinite element methodTrailing edgeRib cageStructural engineeringEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionDeformation (meteorology)AuxeticsComputer scienceIterated functionMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceEngineeringComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This report details an investigation which uses a methodical approach for identifying the best design for a morphable rib. This morphable rib is to be integrated with a Flexible Trailing Edge (FTE) design. Following the procedure of this report, 6 initial structure types were considered, specifically, these structures are auxetic. Based on Finite Element Analysis (FEA) simulation results, the best structures were iterated upon. These simulations aimed to find designs which had the greatest reaction force, indicating strength, and a minimal side deformation, which may indicate failure. FEA continued with changes made to specific dimensions, to understand the effects of variations on the original design. Full FTE assemblies were created as well, and loads were applied to the skin and displacements were added to simulate the morphing action. Based on the overall performance of the structure types and assessments of model 3D printed parts, the final ribs for this report were chosen to be the Structure type A, with a ligament thickness of 0.055 in. The ribs have been printed and are pending further testing, to validate simulation results. Future design work would include further iterations as well as integration with the morphing features of the FTE.</p>

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.864
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207