MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154991032 · doi:10.2118/90213-ms

Real Time Optimization: Classification and Assessment

2004· article· en· W3154991032 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

VenueSPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Value (mathematics)Promotion (chess)Risk analysis (engineering)Operations researchManagement scienceProcess managementEngineeringMachine learningBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Real-Time Optimization Technical Interest Group (RTO TIG) has endeavored to clarify the value of real-time optimization projects. RTO projects involve three critical components: People, Process, and Technology. Understanding these components will help to establish a framework for determining the value of RTO efforts. In this paper, the Technology component is closely examined and categorized. Levels within each Technology category are illustrated using spider diagrams, which help decision-makers understand the current status of operations and the impact of future RTO projects. Uncertain value perception in our industry has been one of the critical issues in adopting RTO systems. Therefore, case histories are reviewed to demonstrate the impact of RTO projects. To assist RTO project promotion, we list lessons learned through case histories, suggest a justification process, and present a simple economic example.

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 score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.274 · 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