MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399417171 · doi:10.2166/9781789061154_0103

Practical procedures for sensor quality assessment

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399417171 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

VenueIWA Publishing eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSensor Technology and Measurement Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Reliability engineeringEngineeringPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensors are increasingly deployed for process monitoring and control. These produce on-line measurements at a high frequency, in parallel with low-frequency laboratory measurements. Compared to laboratory practices, sensor data quality assessment and control practices are far less structured at most utilities. This leads to inaccurate sensor data with unknown uncertainty factors. This chapter shows how to establish standard operating procedures (SOPs) to support sensor data quality assessment and control and subsequent maintenance actions by producing relevant sensor metadata. Furthermore, SOPs are provided for the most commonly used wastewater quality sensors, inspired by utility and academic best practices. This chapter builds on definitions provided in Chapter 3 and provides additional definitions specifically related to sensors maintenance. Chapter 6 complements the methods in this chapter, which are based on reference measurements, with data-analytical techniques.

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), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.220 · 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