MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000251225 · doi:10.1002/acs.994

Multiple robust track‐following controller design in hard disk drives

2007· article· en· W2000251225 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 Adaptive Control and Signal Processing · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)Computer scienceController (irrigation)Control theory (sociology)Tracking (education)Set (abstract data type)Robust controlOptimal controlControl engineeringMathematical optimizationControl (management)Control systemMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a new technique for track‐following control in hard disk drives, in order to achieve high tracking precision of magnetic read–write heads uniformly for a huge number of disk drives. The basic idea in this technique is to classify the disk drives into several sets depending on dynamics properties, and to apply a robust controller to each set. The problem of designing the optimal classification of dynamics and the corresponding optimal robust controllers is formulated as a nonconvex optimization problem, for which sub‐optimal solutions are to be found numerically. A numerical simulation shows the usefulness of the proposed technique by illustrating a tracking performance improvement. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.782

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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