MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803913007 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2017-0066

Early bearing fault diagnosis based on improved SFLA and ELM network

2018· article· en· W2803913007 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jingwen Xu, Yunxuan Zhang, Ziqi Yin

Post-publication record

NatureRetraction
ReasonAuthor Unresponsive;False/Forged Authorship;
Date3/11/2019 0:00
Flagged by OpenAlex?Yes

Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsExtreme learning machineGeneralizationBearing (navigation)Fault (geology)Artificial neural networkComputer scienceChaoticArtificial intelligenceControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, an extreme learning machine (ELM) network based on an improved shuffled frog leaping algorithm (CCSFLA) is applied in early bearing fault diagnosis. ELM is a new type of single layer forward network. Although the generalization is stronger compared with traditional neural networks, a random setup of initial parameters increases instability of the network. An improved SFLA based on sinusoidal chaotic mapping with infinite collapses and constriction factors (CCSFLA) is proposed in this paper to optimize the ELM and obtain a CCSFLA–ELM model. Results show that the CCSFLA–ELM model can be used for optimization and that it improved the recognition of early bearing fault diagnosis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMachine Learning and ELMFrench-language works237,207