MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392725740 · doi:10.1155/2024/6686238

A Multifactor Combination Optimization Design Based on Orthogonality for a Two‐Degree‐of‐Freedom Floating Machine Gun Vibration System

2024· article· en· W4392725740 on OpenAlexaff
Yang Wang, Cheng Xu, Long He, Yanfeng Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueShock and Vibration · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOrthogonalityVibrationDegree (music)Structural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringControl theory (sociology)MathematicsAcousticsPhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a novel type of floating machine gun that can be simplified as a self‐balancing two‐degree‐of‐freedom mechanical system with distinct vibration characteristics. The model accounts for intricate motion patterns and encompasses numerous potential influencing factors. Multifactor combination optimization of the system represents a pressing engineering challenge. After establishing a simulation model for the machine gun and validating it experimentally, seven factors were chosen as optimization variables. The maximum recoil displacement of the inner receiver (MRD) and the firing rate were chosen to be indicators. Orthogonal combinations and variance analyses were used, and the effects of multiple factors were analyzed using SPSS software; these processes led to a determination of the optimal combination. The results indicated that the piston cylinder pressure, the bi‐directional buffer spring energy storage, and the inner receiver mass significantly affected the MRD. Furthermore, the automaton mass and the reset spring energy storage were found to substantially affect the firing rate. Careful analysis of the variance results facilitated the determination of the optimal combination of parameter values. Remarkably, the optimal combination chosen resulted in an MRD reduction of approximately 20.2% and a firing rate increase of approximately 26.6%.

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 score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShock and VibrationSame topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207