MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103119625 · doi:10.1109/cca.1993.348302

Using fuzzy logic for on-line trend analysis

2002· article· en· W2103119625 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Poirier, J.A. Meech

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceProcess (computing)Task (project management)Operator (biology)Filter (signal processing)Spurious relationshipPagingData miningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningProgramming languageEngineeringOperating systemSystems engineeringComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time trend analysis of plant data is an important but sometimes difficult human-thought process. While experienced operators can usually quickly filter out spurious information upsets, novices must spend considerable time acquiring such skill. Then the number of trend analyses are high, updating the memory of current plant situations can be onerous, resulting in omissions or other failures. A real-time expert system has been developed to assist in this task for a copper flotation process. Using fuzzy logic, the system determines current and past process states and reports on DCS signals regarding significant changes up or down. When such a change occurs, a message is sent to the computer console to indicate the trend and its corresponding time scale. The system filters out faulty assays and recognizes when equipment is shut down. In this way, an operator can instantly become aware of process trends upon returning to his station from an excursion into the plant. Aspects of the trend analyzer are discussed in this paper and an example of its successful application is given.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFault Detection and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207