MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391666339 · doi:10.2208/jscejj.23-23187

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MARKOV CHAIN MODEL ESTIMATION METHODS BASED ON VISUAL INSPECTION DATA

2023· article· en· W4391666339 on OpenAlexaff
Kotaro Sasai, Hironobu INAGAKI, Koya SHIKATA, Kiyoyuki KAITO

Bibliographic record

VenueJapanese Journal of JSCE · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicAdvanced Statistical Process Monitoring
Canadian institutionsL'Alliance Boviteq
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chainComputer scienceVisual inspectionMarkov chain Monte CarloMarkov modelArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)Machine learningBayesian probability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

社会基盤施設の統計的劣化予測では,目視点検データを用いてマルコフ推移確率を推定し,マルコフ連鎖モデルにより劣化過程を記述する方法論が多く提案されているが,各種推定手法の有効性や適用可能性について実データを用いた比較事例は少ない.したがって,実務においてアセットマネジメントを実践する際に劣化予測手法の選択基準が明確であるとは言い難い.また,推定手法には,実務者が自ら適用するにあたって,数学的・技術的な障壁を有する手法が存在する.本研究では,各種推定手法の特長や制約条件について既往研究をもとに整理する.その上で,実点検データを用いて,想定される条件下においてマルコフ推移確率を推定し,各種手法が有効的に機能する条件や,適用が不適切になり得る状況を分析する.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJapanese Journal of JSCESame topicAdvanced Statistical Process MonitoringFrench-language works237,207