MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210806007 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2022.01.020

Iterative Feedback Tuning Algorithm for Tower Crane Systems

2022· article· en· W4210806007 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

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicControl Systems and Identification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMinistry of Education and Research, RomaniaUnitatea Executiva pentru Finantarea Invatamantului Superior, a Cercetarii, Dezvoltarii si InovariiCorporation for National and Community Service
KeywordsComputer scienceTowerAlgorithmIterative methodControl theory (sociology)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes validates an Iterative Feedback Tuning (IFT) algorithm, which is a classical and also popular data-driven algorithm, on tower crane systems. The IFT algorithm is applied to improve the performances of three proportional-integral (PI) controllers by solving an optimization problem. The IFT algorithm is validated using experiments to control the cart position, the arm angular position and the payload position. The experiments are conducted on a tower crane system in authors’ laboratory, and the experimental setup is laboratory equipment that has strong nonlinearities. Ten iterations are performed to highlight the control system performance using IFT controllers.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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