MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606057541 · doi:10.15866/iremos.v6i2.2414

Successive and Parallel Optimization of Linear Actuator Behaviors

2013· article· en· W1606057541 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

VenueInternational Review on Modelling and Simulations (IREMOS) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorParameterized complexityControl theory (sociology)ThrustFinite element methodComputer scienceLinear actuatorControl engineeringOptimization problemControl (management)EngineeringAlgorithmMechanical engineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout this paper a magnetostatic and a dynamic model of an incremental linear actuator are implemented in the goal to improve the static force and the overflow of the dynamic response over two successive step displacements by optimizing its design and control parameters. First a parameterized design model is built. Second, a dynamic model is implemented. This model takes into account the thrust force computed from a Finite Element model. Third, a successive optimization of design and control parameters of the incremental actuator is applied using two hybrid monoobjective algorithms implemented under the elaborated platform. Finally, a parallel optimization of control and design parameters of the studied actuator is performed using monoobjective and multiobjective algorithm developed under the OPtimization Platform (O2P).

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.254 · 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