MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123672328 · doi:10.1109/cca.2002.1038784

Using measures of controllability and observability for input and output selection

2003· article· en· W2123672328 on OpenAlexaff
A. Heniche, Innocent Kamwa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservabilityControllabilityControl theory (sociology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Linear-quadratic-Gaussian controlController (irrigation)Computer scienceControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceApplied mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper two different measures of observability and controllability are used for measurement and control signals selection. These measures are obtained according to two approaches. Controllers are designed by using the selected signals and LQG theory. The simulations results show the gaps of an approach compared to the other.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207