MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554174234 · doi:10.3233/jcm-160678

An extensible platform for building remote experiment control

2016· article· en· W2554174234 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bauer, Stewart McIntyre, Nathaniel Sherry, Chris Armstrong, John Haley, Matt R. Cross, Jinhui Qin, Azade Khaladj, Arash Khosravi, Ken McIssac

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMiddleware (distributed applications)Remote controlSoftwareMechatronicsControl (management)Systems engineeringSoftware engineeringEmbedded systemOperating systemEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research equipment, experiment control devices and even industrial equipment, typically require individuals to be present to make use of that equipment. In many cases, this requires researchers to travel to the equipment or move the equipment to specific locations and operate it. With network connectivity becoming more available, even in remote locations, remote operation of such equipment is increasingly possible. This can reduce travel costs, increase the efficiency of use of such equipment and even help with safety. This paper describes work on the creation of a software platform of generic services for access to and use of devices for research, education and potentially for industrial use. The current set of services, the underlying middleware and architecture of the platform are described. Use of the platform to develop remote operation services for a mechatronics laboratory for use by engineering students is presented. The longer term goal is to make the software available to researchers to allow better remote access to experiments in environments such as undersea, deep space, high radiation, and toxic gases.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0060.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Computational Methods in Sciences and EngineeringSame topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207