MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1539570097 · doi:10.7315/jcde.2014.021

Survey on the virtual commissioning of manufacturing systems

2014· article· en· W1539570097 on OpenAlexaff
Chi G. Lee, Sang Chan Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Design and Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgency for Defense DevelopmentMinistry of Education, Science and Technology
KeywordsProject commissioningDebuggingEngineeringController (irrigation)Systems engineeringComputer scienceControl engineeringManufacturing engineeringOperating systemPublishing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reviews and identifies issues in the application of virtual commissioning technology for automated manufacturing systems. While the real commissioning of a manufacturing system involves a real plant system and a real controller, the virtual commissioning deals with a virtual plant model and a real controller. The expected benefits of virtual commissioning are the reduction of debugging and correction efforts during the subsequent real commissioning stage. However, it requires a virtual plant model and hence still requires significant amount time and efforts. Two main issues are identified, the physical model construction of a virtual device, and the logical model construction of a virtual device. This paper reviews the current literature related to the two issues and proposes future research directions to achieve the full utilization of virtual commissioning technology.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations197
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Design and EngineeringSame topicFlexible and Reconfigurable Manufacturing SystemsFrench-language works237,207