Influence of the vibrating source behavior and source side excitations on the Interface Completeness Criterion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the framework of component-based transfer path analysis (CB-TPA), the Interface Completeness Criterion (ICC) is used to select the mobility completeness, i.e., the number of degrees of freedom (DoFs) at the interface between a vibrating source and a receiving structure. The calculation of the ICC is similar to a coherence function with values between 0 and 1. The higher the ICC, the better the completeness of the mobility. Although ICC has shown promising results, its application remains ambiguous. The influence of source side excitations and the behavior of the vibrating source have not been investigated. In this study, ICC is computed numerically in the case of a rigid vibrating source connected to a plate. Full completeness provides high ICC values, while completeness along a single DoF, normal to the structure, provides low ICC values, which may suggest a poor assessment of the on-board velocity. However, it is shown that the on-board velocity is perfectly estimated with the CB-TPA when the source behavior is simple. Discrepancies appear when the source behavior becomes more complex, but the link between these discrepancies and ICC is not obvious. The influence of source side excitations during ICC calculation is also investigated in the case of the Z completeness. It is shown that the number and orientation of the source side excitations govern ICC values and therefore should follow the source behavior, which is normally unknown. The numerical results are confirmed by the experimental study where similar results are obtained.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it