MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986676077 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20653

Determining the state of a process control system: Current trends and future challenges

2011· article· en· W1986676077 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl (management)Process (computing)Process controlController (irrigation)Industrial control systemComputer scienceControl systemState (computer science)Risk analysis (engineering)Model predictive controlSupervisory controlReliability engineeringControl engineeringEngineeringSystems engineeringArtificial intelligenceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In many industrial plants, multiple, interconnected control loops are common. Their maintenance and improvement requires detailed controller performance assessment to determine not only whether they are behaving well, but also to determine the potential cause of any observed problems. Techniques for performance assessment can be divided into two broad categories (1) performance assessment of regulatory control loops; and (2) performance assessment of supervisory control loops that evaluate the economic performance of advanced control strategies, such as model predictive control (MPC). A comprehensive review of the literature on the industrial applications of performance assessment, as well as some of the currently available software, is also presented. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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