MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6966807627 · doi:10.4224/18253445

Design guide for wake survey positioning software version 1.0

2009· report· en· W6966807627 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2009
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeSoftwareController (irrigation)Decoupling (probability)Graphical user interfaceMotion controlMotion controllerInterface (matter)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wake survey experiment is used to profile water flow around a ship's propellers. This is done by positioning pressure sensors at various locations using a two axis stage. Two Soloist motion controller manufactured by Aerotech, with each controller operating a single axis motor, controls the stage. The Wake Survey Positioning software provides a user interface to the controllers and allows execution of a runfile. The runfile contains a list of points where pressure data is to be collected. Typically there is insufficient tanks space to complete all the points in a single run, therefore points are organized into multiple runs. The Wake Survey Positioning software contains several software components that interact together to perform a wake survey. These components are responsible for communications with the controllers, operations with the runfile, and application support operations such as configuration management. Components are also present for decoupling the model from the graphical user interface. Additionally, two programs run the motion controllers that provide status feedback and analog output of positional information. This report will discuss design of these modules and operation of these modules.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1350.121

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→