MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How does artificial intelligence affect reliable engineering?

2024· article· en· W4391537168 on OpenAlexaff
Lili Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Operation Research and Production Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBIM and Construction Integration
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)Artificial intelligenceComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article explores the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on engineering, focusing on the evolution over the last decade. AI has become a cornerstone in reliable engineering, influencing various aspects such as predictive maintenance, fault detection, optimization, automation, and decision support. Predictive maintenance, enabled by AI algorithms, revolutionizes traditional approaches by analysing extensive datasets to predict equipment failures, allowing proactive interventions and minimizing downtime. Fault detection and diagnostics benefit from AI's real-time monitoring and early anomaly identification, reducing the risk of catastrophic failures and enhancing overall system reliability. Optimization of complex systems is facilitated by AI's capacity to process vast amounts of data, leading to improved performance and minimized resource consumption. The integration of AI in automation and robotics reshapes manufacturing processes, emphasizing precision and reliability. Simulation and modelling, data analysis, and supply chain optimization are also discussed as vital areas where AI contributes to enhanced reliability. The article highlights the importance of ethical considerations and human oversight in deploying AI responsibly, emphasizing a collaborative synergy between AI and human expertise for continued advancements in engineering solutions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.022
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Operation Research and Production ManagementSame topicBIM and Construction IntegrationFrench-language works237,207