MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preface

2025· article· en· W4411063561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2025 9 th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Automation and Control Technologies (AIACT 2025), was successfully held in Sapporo, Japan from February 17 to 21, 2025, which was organized by Hong Kong Society of Mechanical Engineers(HKSME) and Shanghai Jiao Tong University, supported by Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Considering that some participants could not attend in person, the conference was adjusted as hybrid conference, as a combination of on-line and off-line conference. The conference accepted 33 papers, including countries like Malaysia, Japan, China, India, Thailand, Australia, Singapore,Canada, etc. Four renowned speakers delivered speeches about their latest research. They are Prof. Edwin K. P. Chong from Colorado State University, USA; Prof. Shugen Ma from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, China; Prof. Graziano Chesi from The University of Hong Kong, HKSAR,China and Prof. Haibin DUAN from Beihang University,China, delivered excellent speeches, sharing their latest and insightful research ideas. The conference also includes 3 technical sessions and one poster session. Each presenter was given 10-15 minutes to deliver their presentation, including 2 minutes Q&A. Two awards, one best oral presentation award and one best poster presentation award were selected by the end of conference. There is a lively discussion at the conference, which promotes academic exchange, which makes AIACT 2025 an effective communication platform for all the participants all over the world. List of COMMITTEES is available in this PDF.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207