MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331674144 · doi:10.1061/9780784412848.170

A Practical Approach to the Phase and Amplitude Error Estimation for Pseudodynamic (PSD) Testing

2013· article· en· W2331674144 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Mirza Hessabi, Oya Mercan

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2013 · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorComputer scienceOvershoot (microwave communication)Control theory (sociology)Phase (matter)AmplitudeObservational errorTracking errorControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In PSD testing, measured signals from the experiment are used in command generation on the fly, thus making this method prone to error propagation. One way to assess the accuracy of the real-time (or fast) PSD test results is to assess the accuracy of the tracking of command displacements imposed by the hydraulic actuators. This paper introduces indicators that can be used to uncouple and quantify actuator lag/lead (i.e., phase errors) and undershoot/overshoot (i.e., amplitude errors) errors that occur while imposing the command displacements dynamically in real-time. These closed-form indicators provide monitors that are not experiment-specific and are simple to use. They use uncomplicated mathematical functions, which makes them suitable candidates for online implementation with the potential for incorporation into the control law to improve the actuator control. The procedure and the associated theoretical background are explained for each step and then the properties of the indicators are examined through several predefined command and measured signals with known characteristics. In addition, the performance of the indicators is evaluated by comparing the results with those revealed by the previous indicators.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2013Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207