MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982688261 · doi:10.1080/00207540210135596

Simulation metamodelling with neural networks: An experimental investigation

2002· article· en· W1982688261 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 Journal of Production Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamodelingArtificial neural networkRobustness (evolution)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial neural networks are often proposed as an alternative approach for formalizing various quantitative and qualitative aspects of complex systems. This paper examines the robustness of using neural networks as a simulation metamodel to estimate manufacturing system performances. Simulation models of a job shop system are developed for various configurations to train neural network metamodels. Extensive computational tests are carried out with the proposed models at various factor levels (study horizon, system load, initial system status, stochasticity, system size and error assessment methods) to see the metamodel accuracy. The results indicate that simulation metamodels with neural networks can be effectively used to estimate the system performances.

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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.237 · 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