MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904097672 · doi:10.22111/ieco.2018.26308.1072

OSA: Orientation Search Algorithm

2019· article· en· W2904097672 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

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmParticle swarm optimizationSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceSeries (stratigraphy)Orientation (vector space)Position (finance)Meta-optimizationOptimization problemOptimization algorithmGenetic algorithmMetaheuristicMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random based inventive algorithms are being widely used for optimization. An important category of these algorithms comes from the idea of physical processes or the behavior of beings. A new method for achieving quasi-optimal solutions related to optimization problems in various sciences is proposed in this paper. The proposed algorithm for optimizing the orientation game is a series of optimization algorithms that are formed with the idea of an old game and search operators are an arrangement of players. These players are displaced in a certain space, under the influence of the game referee's orders. The best position is achieved by the laws are there in this game .In this paper, the real version of the algorithm is presented. The results of optimization of a set of standard functions confirm the optimal efficiency of the proposed method, as well as the superiority of the proposed algorithm over the genetic algorithm and the particle swarm optimization algorithm.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.739
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.328 · 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