MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162399951 · doi:10.3390/s100100241

A Multi-Fault Diagnosis Method for Sensor Systems Based on Principle Component Analysis

2009· article· en· W2162399951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersShanghai Municipal Education CommissionNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisFault (geology)Artificial neural networkComponent (thermodynamics)Fault detection and isolationComputer scienceSoft sensorMean squared errorPattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model based on PCA (principal component analysis) and a neural network is proposed for the multi-fault diagnosis of sensor systems. Firstly, predicted values of sensors are computed by using historical data measured under fault-free conditions and a PCA model. Secondly, the squared prediction error (SPE) of the sensor system is calculated. A fault can then be detected when the SPE suddenly increases. If more than one sensor in the system is out of order, after combining different sensors and reconstructing the signals of combined sensors, the SPE is calculated to locate the faulty sensors. Finally, the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated by simulation and comparison studies, in which two sensors in the system are out of order at the same time.

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.

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 score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
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