MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528724240 · doi:10.3233/ifs-2000-112

Fault diagnosis using algorithmic redundancy

2000· article· en· W1528724240 on OpenAlex
M. Ghetie, Dominique Sauter, Hassan Noura, Mehrdad Saif

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

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedundancy (engineering)Fault detection and isolationComputer scienceReliability engineeringALARMFalse alarmIsolation (microbiology)Data miningAlgorithmComputer engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces the concept of algorithmic redundancy used in fault diagnosis. Its implementation is illustrated with three examples: a statistical limit checking test, a fault detection and isolation method based on balance equations, and a fuzzy alarm generator. These three methods are integrated in a hierarchical diagnostic architecture that is used to validate the concept with simulation results.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
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