MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Robustness Analysis of Two-Dimensional Networks

2006· article· en· W2064576913 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

VenueJournal of Surveying Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Decision-Making Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Geodetic datumComputer scienceAlgorithmData miningMathematicsGeodesyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After geodetic networks are established, relevant measurements are made and point coordinates are estimated by the least-squares method. However, the least-squares method does not give any information about the robustness of networks. To measure robustness of a network, the degree of deformation of individual points of the network is measured by strain. Furthermore, threshold values are needed to evaluate networks. These threshold values will enable us to evaluate the robustness of the network. If the displacements of individual points of the network are worse than the threshold values, we must redesign the network by changing the configuration or improving the measurements until we obtain a network of acceptable robustness. This paper describes how to obtain the displacements at individual points of a network, employs the specifications of the Geodetic Survey Division, and shows the power of the technique on different geodetic networks.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
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