MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320477252 · doi:10.1021/ie202352f

Mean-Squared-Error Methods for Selecting Optimal Parameter Subsets for Estimation

2012· article· en· W2320477252 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFault Detection and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthogonalizationRanking (information retrieval)Robustness (evolution)Mean squared errorSelection (genetic algorithm)Sensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceEstimation theoryRank (graph theory)Model selectionMathematical optimizationMathematicsStatisticsAlgorithmData miningMachine learningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engineers who develop fundamental models for chemical processes are often unable to estimate all of the parameters, especially when available data are limited or noisy. In these situations, modelers may decide to select only a subset of the parameters for estimation. An orthogonalization algorithm combined with a mean squared error (MSE) based selection criterion has been used to rank parameters from most to least estimable and to determine the parameter subset that should be estimated to obtain the best predictions. A robustness test is proposed and applied to a batch reactor model to assess the sensitivity of the selected parameter subset to initial parameter guesses. A new ranking and selection technique is also developed based on the MSE criterion and is compared with existing techniques in the literature. Results obtained using the proposed ranking and selection techniques agree with those from leave-one-out cross-validation but are more computationally attractive.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.278 · 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