MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133223539 · doi:10.1109/aim.2003.1225502

Adaptive velocity estimation for disk drive head positioning

2004· article· en· W2133223539 on OpenAlexafffund
Azad Shademan, Farrokh Janabi‐Sharifi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchool of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences
KeywordsComputer scienceKalman filterNoise (video)OutlierFocus (optics)Position (finance)Control theory (sociology)ActuatorServoTrajectoryComputer visionArtificial intelligencePhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid increase of data areal density in disk drives, the need for more accurate position sensing and velocity estimation techniques for the disk drive head actuator emerges. This paper studies the application of velocity estimation methods for disk drive head positioning servo-mechanism with a focus on adaptive windowing velocity estimation. The adaptive windowing technique requires no prior knowledge of measurement noise and shows a better performance compared to conventional finite difference method and Kalman filtering technique. We have compared the performance of adaptive velocity estimation methods under study over a noisy position trajectory in terms of measures for error statistics and undesired shifting. The undesired shifting measure has been developed to reflect the estimation delay and outliers. The simulation results show the superiority of adaptive windowing velocity estimation to conventional methods.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207