MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921615586 · doi:10.33889/ijmems.2017.2.1-003

Sneak Circuit Analysis: Lessons Learned from Near Miss Event

2017· article· en· W2921615586 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

VenueInternational Journal of Mathematical Engineering and Management Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEmbedded Systems and FPGA Applications
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)Computer scienceFunction (biology)Operator (biology)Path (computing)MonorailEngineeringProgramming languagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sneak Circuit Analysis is intended for critical applications which are essential to mission success and safety. A sneak condition will occur when a designed circuit inhibits a wanted function or results in an unwanted function. Sneak conditions originate from one of the four following scenarios: a sneak path resulting in a flow of electrical current along an unexpected route; a sneak timing that may cause the activation of some desired/designed functionality at an unexpected time; a sneak indication in monitoring functions that may result in an ambiguous or false display of system operating conditions; and lastly, a sneak label which may induce operator error due to inappropriate instruction. This paper introduces a near miss event that occurred in the Sao Paulo monorail which was caused by a sneak time condition. Root cause analysis and design modifications are also discussed in the paper.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.264 · 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