MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020224839 · doi:10.1115/detc2002/dac-34116

Theoretical Evaluation of the Integrated Structure and Control Design Approach by Optimization Theory

2002· article· en· W2020224839 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSensor Technology and Measurement Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated designComputer scienceDesign methodsControl (management)Simple (philosophy)Probabilistic designControl engineeringMathematical optimizationEngineering design processEngineeringMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing to the traditional sequential design approach, the integrated structure and control design approach integrates the mechanical structure design and the control system design by formulating the design as an optimization problem. This paper investigates two important questions pertaining to the integrated structure and control design approach: Why and when should the integrated design approach be used rather than the traditional sequential design approach? In this paper, we have formulated both approaches as optimization problems. The benefit of the integrated design approach over the sequential design approach is proved in this paper. The conditions for when the integrated design approach will result in better closed-loop system performances are also given. A simple example is given to illustrate the theoretical results derived. The conclusion is given following this example and the simulation results are shown at the end of the paper.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.187 · 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