MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ACHIEVING OR EXCEEDING MAXIMUM AVAILABLE FEEDBACK

2006· article· en· W1971352206 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueControl and Intelligent Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStability and Control of Uncertain Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)AsymptoteLoop gainOpen-loop gainBandwidth (computing)Feedback loopComputer sciencePhase marginFeedback controlAutomatic gain controlControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)MathematicsTelecommunicationsVoltageElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A feedback system for control or electronics should have high loop gain, so that its output is close to its desired state, and the effects of changes in the system and of disturbances are minimised. Bode proposed a method for single loop feedback systems to obtain the maximum available feedback, defined as the largest possible loop gain over a bandwidth pertinent to the system, with appropriate gain and phase margins. The method uses asymptotic approximations, and this paper describes some novel adjustments to the asymptotes, so that the final system often exceeds the maximum available feedback. The implementation of the method requires the cascading of a series of lead-lag element. This paper describes a new way to determine how many elements should be used.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.183 · 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