MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093641577 · doi:10.1002/adv.21402

Neural Network: A Potential Approach for Error Reduction in Color Values of Polycarbonate

2013· article· en· W2093641577 on OpenAlexaff
Usman Saeed, Jamal Alsadi, Sameer Ahmad, Ghaus Rizvi, Daniel Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Polymer Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsInnovative Medicines CanadaOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSigmoid functionArtificial neural networkBackpropagationMean squared errorGradient descentReduction (mathematics)Computer sciencePolycarbonateConjugate gradient methodAlgorithmApproximation errorArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)StatisticsMathematicsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In current exploration, the artificial neural network (ANN) is executed to reduce the errors in color values of polycarbonate. The network consists of sigmoid hidden units and a linear output unit arranged in a feed forward backpropagation architecture. An optimal design is accomplished for 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 hidden neurons on a hidden layer with five different algorithms involving batch gradient descent, batch variable learning rate, resilient back propagation, scaled conjugate gradient, and Levenberg–Marquardt. The training data for ANN are obtained from experimental measurements. There were 22 inputs and three tristimulus color values L*, a*, and b* were used as an output layer. Statistical analysis in terms of root‐mean‐squared, an absolute fraction of variance (R2), as well as a mean square error is used to investigate the performance of ANN. The best result in terms of statistics is presented by the LM algorithm with 14 neurons in the designed ANN model. The degree of accuracy of the ANN model in reduction of errors is proven acceptable in all statistical analysis and shown in results. However, it was concluded that ANN provides a possible method in error reduction in specific color tristimulus values. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Adv Polym Technol 2014, 33, 21402; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com . DOI 10.1002/adv.21402

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Polymer TechnologySame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207