MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011772730 · doi:10.12962/j24068535.v10i1.a25

OPTIMASI PENCAPAIAN TARGET PADA SIMULASI PERENCANAAN JALUR ROBOT BERGERAK DI LINGKUNGAN DINAMIS

2012· article· id· W2011772730 on OpenAlexaff
Yisti Vita Via

Bibliographic record

VenueJUTI Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi Informasi · 2012
Typearticle
Languageid
FieldComputer Science
TopicEdcuational Technology Systems
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Robot bergerak harus memiliki perencanaan jalur yang baik ketika menjalankan navigasi di lingkungan. Penelitian yang terakhir menangani permasalahan simulasi perencanaan jalur di lingkungan dengan kehadiran rintangan dan target yang bergerak. Teknik penghindaran rintangan dalam penelitian tersebut cukup baik namun jalur pencapaian target masih belum optimal. Penelitian ini memperbaiki algoritma Q-learning pada penelitian sebelumnya dengan menggunakan konsep Ant Colony. Pendekatan metode yang dilakukan bertujuan untuk mengoptimalkan pencapaian target. Prediksi pergerakan rintangan dan target juga digunakan untuk meningkatkan efektifitas pencapaian target. Hasil evaluasi uji coba berdasarkan jumlah skenario pelatihan, menunjukkan angka kegagalan metode yang diusulkan lebih kecil 22% dibandingkan metode sebelumnya. Sedangkan berdasarkan jumlah rintangan yang digunakan, angka kegagalan metode yang diusulkan lebih kecil 11% daripada metode sebelumnya. Hasil evaluasi waktu pencapaian target menunjukkan metode yang diusulkan rata-rata mempu mencapai target lebih lama 0,9 detik dari metode sebelumnya. Metode yang diusulkan mampu mencapai target lebih cepat pada pola pergerakan target yang linear.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJUTI Jurnal Ilmiah Teknologi InformasiSame topicEdcuational Technology SystemsFrench-language works237,207