Model verification of large structural systems

A methodology was formulated, and a general computer code implemented for processing sinusoidal vibration test data to simultaneously make adjustments to a prior mathematical model of a large structural system, and resolve measured response data to obtain a set of orthogonal modes representative of the test model. The derivation of estimator equations is shown along with example problems. A method for improving the prior analytic model is included

A computer program for model verification of dynamic systems

Dynamic model verification is the process whereby an analytical model of a dynamic system is compared with experimental data, and then qualified for future use in predicting system response in a different dynamic environment. There are various ways to conduct model verification. The approach adopted in MOVER II employs Bayesian statistical parameter estimation. Unlike curve fitting whose objective is to minimize the difference between some analytical function and a given quantity of test data (or curve), Bayesian estimation attempts also to minimize the difference between the parameter values of that function (the model) and their initial estimates, in a least squares sense. The objectives of dynamic model verification, therefore, are to produce a model which: (1) is in agreement with test data, (2) will assist in the interpretation of test data, (3) can be used to help verify a design, (4) will reliably predict performance, and (5) in the case of space structures, facilitate dynamic control

Methods for evaluating the predictive accuracy of structural dynamic models

Uncertainty of frequency response using the fuzzy set method and on-orbit response prediction using laboratory test data to refine an analytical model are emphasized with respect to large space structures. Two aspects of the fuzzy set approach were investigated relative to its application to large structural dynamics problems: (1) minimizing the number of parameters involved in computing possible intervals; and (2) the treatment of extrema which may occur in the parameter space enclosed by all possible combinations of the important parameters of the model. Extensive printer graphics were added to the SSID code to help facilitate model verification, and an application of this code to the LaRC Ten Bay Truss is included in the appendix to illustrate this graphics capability

An analytical basis for time-modulated random vibration testing

Approximated maximal vibratory response of linear excited system to time modulated stationary random vibratio

A Review of River Herring Science in Support of Species Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration

River herring—a collective name for the Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus and Blueback Herring A. aestivalis—play a crucial role in freshwater and marine ecosystems along the Eastern Seaboard of North America. River herring are anadromous and return to freshwater habitats in the tens to hundreds of millions to spawn, supplying food to many species and providing nutrients to freshwater ecosystems. After two and a half centuries of habitat loss, habitat degradation, and overfishing, river herring are at historic lows. In 2013, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries established the Technical Expert Working Group (TEWG) to synthesize information about river herring and to provide recommendations to advance the science related to their restoration. This paper was composed largely by the chairs of the TEWG subgroups and represents a review of the current state of knowledge of river herring, with an emphasis on identification of threats and discussion of recent research and management actions related to understanding and reducing these threats. Important research needs are then identified and discussed. Finally, current knowledge is synthesized, considering the relative importance of different threats. This synthesis identifies dam removal and increased stream connectivity as critical to river herring restoration. Better understanding and accounting for predation, climate change, and fisheries are also important for restoration. Finally, there is recent evidence that the effects of human development and contamination on habitat quality may be more important threats than previously recognized. Given the range of threats, an ecosystem approach is needed to be successful with river herring restoration. To facilitate this ecosystem approach, collaborative forums such as the TEWG (renamed the Atlantic Coast River Herring Collaborative Forum in 2020) are needed to share and synthesize information among river herring managers, researchers, and community groups from across the species’ range

Response to Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration's Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.status: publishe

Investigating variation in replicability

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely highpowered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Sociales::Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas (IIP