MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409791344 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-380

Research on the teaching model of dynamic structural behavior simulation in structural engineering teaching by combining finite element method

2025· article· en· W4409791344 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodComputer scienceMathematics educationEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to improve the teaching effect of dynamic structural behavior simulation in structural engineering teaching, this study develops a dynamic structural behavior simulation teaching model combined with the finite element method to explore the effect of its application in teaching.This paper first introduces the process of applying the finite element method to simulation teaching and the steps of structural engineering system development.After that, it introduces the common structural engineering analysis functions under ANSYS software and its application in various aspects of structural engineering teaching.Then the construction process of the dynamic structural behavior simulation teaching model is briefly described, and the finite element principle is combined with the actual engineering problems through the integration of case teaching to realize the deep integration of theory and practice.Finally, the teaching model of dynamic structural behavior simulation is constructed and the teaching evaluation system after applying the model.The results of teaching practice show that more than 95% of the students maintain a positive attitude towards the use of the model in this paper.Under the teaching mode of the simulation model visualizing dynamic behavioral characteristics, the average grade of students in the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group by 14.96 points, and the difference between the grades of students in the two classes was significant (P=0.000).It can be seen that the use of the model can improve the students' understanding of dynamic structural mechanical behavior and the application of finite element analysis tools, which provides an efficient platform for combining theory and practice for structural engineering teaching.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207