MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386027650 · doi:10.1504/ijvsmt.2023.132931

Improved models of vehicle differential mechanisms using various approaches

2023· article· en· W4386027650 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 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDifferential (mechanical device)EngineeringComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mathematical modelling of the branched automotive drivetrain is mainly based on various configurations of differential mechanisms (DM). This paper proposes variant math approaches for modelling DM's dynamics. The symmetric (open) DM is considered first. Two mathematical methods based on ordinary differential equation (ODE) and differential-algebraic equation (DEA) problems are applied. The asymmetric self-locking inter-axle differential with proportional friction moments is then considered. Three variants of the mathematical models for this DM type are represented. The linearised model uses the shortest description based on a previous step solution. Two other nonlinear models are formed by mixing with ODE and DAE approaches. The Simulink blocks for implementing developments were composed. The models were validated by comparing the results under the same conditions to prove their math coherence. The analysis of the proposed variants was carried out regarding structural complexity, usability, computational speed, and relative accuracy. Conclusions about their usability in drivetrain dynamics and active control were made.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.136 · 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