MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810689581 · doi:10.1109/icpcsi.2017.8391781

A brief review over neural network modeling techniques

2017· review· en· W2810689581 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue2017 IEEE International Conference on Power, Control, Signals and Instrumentation Engineering (ICPCSI) · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSensor Technology and Measurement Systems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial neural networks (ANN) have been recently emerged as a powerful computer-aided design (CAD) tool for modeling devices and circuits. The overall objective of this paper is to do a survey over different neural network techniques for both frequency domain and transient modeling of circuits and components. The static models discussed in this paper are multilayer perceptron (MLP) and Radial basis function (RBF) neural networks which are mostly used to model and analyze the frequency domain behavior of the circuits. On the other hand, recurrent neural networks (RNN) and dynamic neural network (DNN) that are considered to be time-domain ANNs are discussed. These neural networks permit modeling and analyzing the transient behavior of the nonlinear circuits/components.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.231 · 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