MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1496449379 · doi:10.1109/acc.2015.7172162

Computation of the optimal sensor location for the estimation of an 1-D linear dispersive wave equation

2015· article· en· W1496449379 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorKalman filterBasis (linear algebra)Basis functionNoise (video)MathematicsComputationGalerkin methodSine waveFinite element methodApplied mathematicsSineMathematical analysisAlgorithmMathematical optimizationComputer scienceGeometryPhysicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of finding the optimal sensor location is considered for a Kalman filter used to estimate the state of an one-dimensional linear dispersive wave equation. Various bases for a Galerkin approximation were studied: sine functions, linear finite elements and a sixth order polynomial finite element basis. The calculated estimator and the optimal sensor location converge for all the bases. For this problem, the sine basis was the most efficient method. Calculations with the noise concentrated in different locations suggest that the sensor should be placed near the noise. However, for measurements with a large noise variance, the sensor location has a smaller effect on estimator performance.

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 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 score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.227 · 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