MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990610361 · doi:10.5555/1030818.1030905

Hybrid dynamic systems: models for continous and hybrid system simulation

2003· article· en· W1990610361 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSRotation formalisms in three dimensionsComputer scienceFormalism (music)Hybrid systemAbstractionDiscrete event dynamic systemDiscrete event simulationModeling and simulationContinuous modellingSystems modelingTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete systemDistributed computingAlgorithmSimulationMathematicsSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DEVS formalism was defined as a method for modeling and discrete event systems. DEVS theory evolved and it was recently upgraded in order to permit modeling of continuous and hybrid systems. Here, we present a first experience on the use of two of the existing methods for defining continuous variable DEVS models (namely, the QDEVS and the GDEVS formalisms), to develop continuous and hybrid systems simulations. We show how to model these dynamic systems under the discrete event abstraction. Examples of model simulations with their execution results are included. An experimental analysis on quantization methods within models is also presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.266 · 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