MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1689581663

A New Optimization Design Methodology Of Locomotive Transformers

2004· article· en· W1689581663 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

VenueJournal of Integrated Design & Process Science archive · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Quality and Harmonics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering optimizationEngineering design processTransformerGenetic algorithmEngineeringDesign processMeta-optimizationComputer-automated designComputer scienceMathematical optimizationControl engineeringOptimization problemWork in processAlgorithmMechanical engineeringMathematicsMachine learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study develops a new genetic algorithm, Gene Controlling Genetic Algorithm (GCGA) for optimization design. In performing engineering design optimization, this genetic algorithm intends to maximize the utilization of the existing information such as practical design knowledge, existing relationships of design parameters and engineering experience. With GCGA, design optimization process becomes much efficient. Application of GCGA in optimizing an electric locomotive transformer design is provided in this study. Detailed procedures of optimization with GCGA are presented. In comparing with the traditional genetic algorithm such as EPGA, as indicated in the study, GCGA provides a global convergent solution with higher stability and faster speed. It is demonstrated that GCGA is an algorithm specifically suitable for optimizing complex designs in engineering practice.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.235 · 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