MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4233045691 · doi:10.1021/ie2014586

Tuning a Soft Sensor’s Bias Update Term. 2. The Closed-Loop Case

2012· article· en· W4233045691 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

VenueIndustrial & Engineering Chemistry Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Control Systems Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Term (time)Soft sensorComputer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Process (computing)Sampling (signal processing)Controller (irrigation)Loop (graph theory)Series (stratigraphy)Closed loopControl engineeringControl (management)MathematicsEngineeringData miningArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The difficulty in measuring certain types of process variables rapidly has encouraged the use of soft sensors, which can determine the values of difficult to measure process variables based on easily available secondary process variables. A bias update term that allows the system to take into consideration disturbances in the system is often included in such soft sensor systems. In the second part of this two-part series, an investigation of the bias update term in closed-loop operation in the presence of a drifting (integrating) disturbance for the ideal case, the case where there is measurement delay, the case with multirate sampling, and the case where there is a combination of measurement delay and multirate sampling is considered. Proposed tuning rules are provided for all cases in order to obtain optimal closed-loop tracking of the controller. Simulation and experimental validation of the results is also presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.212 · 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