MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557372423 · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2016.7746271

An overview of path tortuosity measures for tracking and monitoring

2016· article· en· W2557372423 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Li, Shahram Payandeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTortuosityMeasure (data warehouse)Computer sciencePath (computing)Set (abstract data type)Tracking (education)Data miningEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an overview of various paradigms which were used in order to define and measure path tortuosity. The paper further explores various aspects from each measure in order to form a basis for a general set of rules and methodologies. These can then be utilized and compared in various tracking and monitoring applications. Through literature review, an overview of a number of applications which tortuosity can occur are defined. This combined with definitions of various measures, the paper establishes a clear approach in regard to various advantages and disadvantages of these measures. Through example simulations, the paper demonstrates sample measurements of path tortuosity.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207