Methods for determining the centre of effort
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
It is often helpful to calculate a centre of effort to help interpret load data gathered from physical model testing. The centre of effort is taken to be a point where a load consisting of a force and the smallest possible moment must be located if it is to be equivalent to the actual loading on the model. The mathematical equations used to locate the centre of effort cannot specify a point, but do define a line; this line is the line of action of the equivalent load. In an attempt to hold to the traditional view that the centre of effort is a point, a method for selecting a point along the line of action as a point centre of effort is given. The method compares the lines of action from similar test to test is minimized. In some cases, the method can be sensitive to experimental error. The method was applied to data gathered in a test of the hydrodynamic loads acting on a component of a minesweeping system. This application of the method helped to determine what circumstances cause the method to become overly sensitive to experimental error. Two other methods of specifying a point instead of a line were suggested. They set arbitrary restrictions on the location of the centre of effort, and are expected to be roughly as sensitive to error as the method developed here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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