MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335406383 · doi:10.1061/41130(369)312

Phase and Amplitude Error Indices (PAEI) to Assess the Success of Displacement Based Real-Time Testing

2010· article· en· W2335406383 on OpenAlexaff
Reza Mirza Hessabi, Oya Mercan

Bibliographic record

VenueStructures Congress 2010 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydraulic and Pneumatic Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAmplitudeDisplacement (psychology)Invariant (physics)AlgorithmPhase (matter)Control theory (sociology)MathematicsControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time Pseudodynamic (PSD) and hybrid PSD testing methods are essential tools in understanding the dynamic behaviour of load-rate sensitive structures. In these testing methods, the response of the structure is obtained by combining computer simulation with physical testing. Since the measured signals are used in the command generation, these methods are prone to propagation of error; which, if not handled properly, may render the test results inaccurate and sometimes unstable. For that reason, there is a pressing need to develop measures by which the degree of accuracy of the real-time test results is to be assessed. The scope of this paper is to present a general, simple and invariant method for deriving improved error indices which are able to estimate the amount of phase and amplitude errors independently and through closed-form equations. These indices are also compared to previous error indicators to investigate their capability of assessing the success of real-time PSD tests.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructures Congress 2010Same topicHydraulic and Pneumatic SystemsFrench-language works237,207