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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dynamic system model is proper for a particular application if it achieves the accuracy required by the application with minimal complexity. Because model complexity often—but not always—correlates inversely with simulation speed, a proper model is often alternatively defined as one balancing accuracy and speed. Such balancing is crucial for applications requiring both model accuracy and speed, such as system optimization and hardware-in-the-loop simulation. Furthermore, the simplicity of proper models conduces to control system analysis and design, particularly given the ease with which lower-order controllers can be implemented compared to higher-order ones. The literature presents many algorithms for deducing proper models from simpler ones or reducing complex models until they become proper. This paper presents a broad survey of the proper modeling literature. To simplify the presentation, the algorithms are classified into frequency, projection, optimization, and energy based, based on the metrics they use for obtaining proper models. The basic mechanics, properties, advantages, and limitations of the methods are discussed, along with the relationships between different techniques, with the intention of helping the modeler to identify the most suitable proper modeling method for a given application.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it