MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915323812 · doi:10.3384/ecp18148265

Deployment process for Modelica-based models

2019· article· en· W2915323812 on OpenAlexaff
Takashi Iwagaya, Chad Schmitke, Tetsu Yamaguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueLinköping electronic conference proceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModeling and Simulation Systems
Canadian institutionsMaple Leaf Foods
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModelicaComputer scienceSoftware deploymentProcess (computing)Software engineeringSystems engineeringProgramming languageEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces Maplesoft's solutions for deploying Modelica-based models for non-experts of simulation.In order to apply models to analysis, either non-experts need to learn how to use simulation tools, or simulation experts need to prepare easy-of-use GUIs, like Excel and Web technologies.Maplesoft's solutions, MapleSim Explorer and MapleSim Server, allow more flexible and rapidly developed analysis tools for non-experts.These solutions encourage wide use of simulation models.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.011

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinköping electronic conference proceedingsSame topicModeling and Simulation SystemsFrench-language works237,207