MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2251790344 · doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.043

Methodology and Application of Pattern Mining in Multiple Alarm Flood Sequences∗∗This work was supported by an NSERC CRD project.

2015· article· en· W2251790344 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIFAC-PapersOnLine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSyncrude
KeywordsALARMFlood mythComputer scienceManual fire alarm activationSequence (biology)Process (computing)Data miningReal-time computingConstant false alarm rateFalse alarmArtificial intelligenceEngineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alarm floods have always been serious hazards in industrial process monitoring since they overwhelm operators with large amount of alarm messages raised within a short period of time. In this paper, we propose an algorithm to find an optimal alignment of multiple alarm flood sequences so that based on this alignment an alarm sequence pattern can be easily found. The pattern could reveal the correlation between alarm messages in the alarm floods, which cannot be obtained by applying other alarm management techniques such as delay timers and dead-bands. The pattern could also help find the root cause, locate badly designed part in alarm systems, and predict incoming alarm floods. A dataset from an actual chemical plant has been used to test the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.241 · 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