MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031666169 · doi:10.5539/jmr.v4n4p140

Optimal Control for a Stationary Population

2012· article· en· W2031666169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming Li, Qing Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mathematics Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationPopulation controlMathematicsOptimal controlControl (management)Population modelOperator (biology)Management scienceComputer scienceMathematical optimizationSociologyArtificial intelligenceEconomicsResearch methodologyFamily planning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As one of the most important achievements in nonlinear science, population system has drawn wide attention and extensive research in the past few decades. However, population control is a systematic social project with much complexity for the reason that it involves knowledge in many aspects, such as functional analysis, differential equations, partial differential equations, operator theory. Through initiating a series of groundbreaking work on the issue of population control in China, our scientific workers have made a lot of achievements, which are valuable in terms of theory and practice, in understanding and addressing this issue in a correct way.To conduct intensive research on the issue of optimal control is a right way to achieve that. They have made strict and detailed analysis to population system, whose results have a great influence on the family planning policy in China.This paper starts from deducing the population equation and explaining its parameters meaning. Next, it gives the answer to a simple model. Based on stationary population model, this paper, considering population mortality and gaining factor (can only depend on age), gives its prediction to a more general case and tries to gain the optimal control towards population.

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 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)0.008
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mathematics ResearchSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207