MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313416446 · doi:10.20998/2079-0775.2022.2.01

REVIEW OF MODERN USE OF GENETIC AND EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS. STRATEGIES, POSSIBILITIES (REVIEW ARTICLE)

2022· article· en· W4313416446 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 · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Technology and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRelevance (law)RandomnessManagement scienceAdaptation (eye)Artificial intelligenceEvolutionary algorithmData scienceMachine learningMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern trends in the optimal and rational design of technical objects cross a large number of directions of their implementation. One of the interesting and promising directions is genetic and evolutionary algorithms (GА and EA). Authors promote the use of GА and EA as a tool for solving problems of optimal and rational design of complex mechanical systems. The relevance of highlighting modern methods, approaches and strategies for the implementation of GА and EA is described, as well as consideration of their applied implementation, which makes it possible to identify interesting directions of research that, with further adaptation or modifications, can be used to solve the problems of optimal and rational design of gearboxes, boxes gears and transmissions. The main general directions of the literature on GА and EA are highlighted, as well as the practical use of GА and EA in: technical and technological activities, physics, construction, water systems, nanotechnologies, analytical and simulation modeling, electrical and electronic systems, modeling of artificial intelligence and neural networks, information technologies, economic theory, administration and management, marketing, sociology, biology and medicine. This made it possible to understand the course of scientific thought on this issue, to determine the advantages and disadvantages of existing directions and approaches, and helped to choose the vector of further scientific thought, to decide on interesting approaches, strategies and methods. Considering certain features of EA, the authors prefer them. And in terms of strategies, hybridization with other methods, maximum saturation of all stages with "randomness" and the possibility of learning (memory organization) of the algorithm similar to neural networks are promising. Keywords: optimal design, research directions, genetic algorithms, evolutionary algorithms

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.196 · 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