MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2174445735 · doi:10.1515/jaiscr-2015-0013

A Parametric Testing Of The Firefly Algorithm In The Determination Of The Optimal Osmotic Drying Parameters Of Mushrooms

2014· article· en· W2174445735 on OpenAlexaff
Julian Scott Yeomans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStatistical and Computational Modeling
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirefly algorithmParametric statisticsMathematical optimizationFirefly protocolOsmotic dehydrationProcess (computing)Sensitivity (control systems)Range (aeronautics)Computer scienceLinear programmingAlgorithmMathematicsDehydrationChemistryEngineeringParticle swarm optimizationStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Firefly Algorithm (FA) is employed to determine the optimal parameter settings in a case study of the osmotic dehydration process of mushrooms. In the case, the functional form of the dehydration model is established through a response surface technique and the resulting mathematical programming is formulated as a non-linear goal programming model. For optimization purposes, a computationally efficient, FA-driven method is used and the resulting optimal process parameters are shown to be superior to those from previous approaches. The final section of this study provides a computational experimentation performed on the FA to analyze its relative sensitivity over a range of the two key parameters that most influence its running 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing ResearchSame topicStatistical and Computational ModelingFrench-language works237,207