MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114662796 · doi:10.20998/2079-0775.2020.2.02

EXAMPLE OF MULTICRITERIA OPTIMIZATION FOR A TWO-STAGE REDUCER USING A MODIFIED EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM

2020· article· en· W3114662796 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

VenueBulletin of the National Technical University «KhPI» Series Engineering and CAD · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReducerSequence (biology)PopulationProblem statementMathematical optimizationEvolutionary algorithmAlgorithmProcess (computing)Computer sciencePoint (geometry)Scheme (mathematics)Statement (logic)MathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work is devoted to solving the problem of selecting optimal geometric parameters of gears of a two-stage cylindrical reducer using a modified evolutionary algorithm (EA). The statement of the problem is considered, design parameters, objective functions, limitations on design parameters are determined. This allowed us to propose a modification of EA. To generate the initial test points, it was proposed to use the LP-τ sequence, this allowed us to reduce the initial population of test points and bring EA closer to a truly «random» process. The scheme of the proposed algorithm is considered, which gives an idea of the sequence of operations that are carried out with populations of test points at each stage of the evolutionary process. The solution of the specific problem of selecting optimal parameters for a serial reducer is given. The input data, numerical and functional limitations are determined, the objective functions are formed. The results of the solution are shown in several presentation formats: tabular and graphical, which allows to qualitatively interpret and analyze the results. The approach of transition from many criteria to one is proposed by introducing the scale of importance by the designer and assigning the importance of each of the criteria, finding the desired solution for each trial point of relative bias, which is proposed to be used as a unifying criterion. Conclusions are made about testing the proposed algorithm for solving a specific problem of optimal design. Further ways of improving this methodology are proposed.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.194 · 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