MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087553274 · doi:10.1002/acs.771

Performance assessment of level controllers

2003· article· en· W2087553274 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 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothingController (irrigation)Variance (accounting)Control theory (sociology)Variable (mathematics)Flow control (data)Computer scienceControl engineeringEngineeringControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A variety of techniques have been developed for the assessment of industrial control loops. These involve computation of an index which compares some measure of controlled variable performance (e.g. variance of distillate impurity) to the best achievable. Such methods are generally not suitable for the assessment of surge tank level controllers, for which the behaviour of the manipulated effluent flowrate is of greater concern. This paper introduces a flow smoothing performance index for the assessment of surge tank level loops against an averaging level control standard. Several control schemes were evaluated as potential flow smoothing benchmarks through application to simulated, pilot‐plant and industrial data sets. An optimal PI regulator was recommended as the default performance standard for industrial level control loops. A novel feature of this assessment technique is that it not only measures the performance of the installed controller, but also specifies new settings for the PI tuning parameters. Copyright © 2003 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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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