MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110689179 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3903

PREDICTIVE HOLOGRAPHIC NEURAL NETWORK CONTROL OF 2 DOF MAGNETIC LEVITATION DEVICE

2011· article· en· W2110689179 on OpenAlexaffvenue
S. Darenfed, G. Sridharan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSensorless Control of Electric Motors
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkModel predictive controlControl theory (sociology)LevitationControl engineeringComputer scienceMagnetic levitationNonlinear systemController (irrigation)Artificial intelligenceEngineeringControl (management)PhysicsMagnetMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective herein is to demonstrate the feasibility of a real-time digital control of a 2 DOF magnetic levitation device for modeling and controls education, with emphasis on predictive holographic neural network control. The plant of interest is a magnetic levitation device that is nonlinear and open-loop unstable. In this application, the reference model of the plant is a neural network that has an embedded nominal linear model in the network weights. The control based on the linear model provides initial stability at the beginning of network training. In using a holographic neural network the control laws are nonlinear and online adaptation of the model is possible to capture unmodeled or time-varying dynamics. Such an environment provides for experimentation, data collection, system identification and novel control strategy implementation. The environment is used to implement predictive holographic neural networks with real-time dynamic weight tuning and controller performance comparison under various trajectories input. The educational features of this environment are being tested in a senior control engineering classroom setting.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicSensorless Control of Electric MotorsFrench-language works237,207