MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607281774

Exploratory Work for the PMP Heavy-Duty Inter-laboratory Correlation Exercise

2010· other· en· W2607281774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Barouch Giechaskiel, Martinez-Lozano Pablo, Massimo Carriero, Giorgio Martini

Bibliographic record

VenueJoint Research Centre (European Commission) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicAdvanced Combustion Engine Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Heavy dutyCorrelationDutyEngineeringPolitical scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of the LD inter-laboratory exercise were reported during 2007 (Andersson et al. 2007).\tThe HD exercise consists of three parts:\n¿\tThe exploratory work at JRC for the definition of the measurement protocol. It includes system and sample backgrounds, filter media and filter face velocity effects, preconditioning, comparisons of different particle number systems, and investigation of the particle number instruments.\n¿\tThe validation exercise for the evaluation of particle number repeatability and reproducibility using the same measurement systems at all labs (Golden Systems). In the validation exercise, an engine (Golden Engine) will be circulated along with two Golden Systems used to simultaneously sample from full (FFDS) and partial flow exhaust dilution (PFDS) systems respectively. The Golden Engineer and project manager will ensure that the participating labs closely follow the measurement protocol. Low sulphur fuel and lubricant from single batches will be used at all labs. The participating labs are JRC (I), AVL_MTC (S), RICARDO (UK), UTAC (F), and EMPA (CH). JRC tested first and will also measure last to demonstrate consistency of measurement systems and test engine.\n¿\tThe round robin exercise for the evaluation of particle number repeatability and reproducibility using different systems. In the round robin, a reference engine will circulate, but each lab will use its own particle number systems from FFDS and optionally from PFDS. All labs will use fuel and lubricant of the same type (but not from the same batch). The participating labs are from EU, Japan, Korea and Canada. \n\tThe validation and the round robin exercises, which will run in parallel, started after the exploratory work in JRC (Feb 2008).

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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.016

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJoint Research Centre (European Commission)Same topicAdvanced Combustion Engine TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207