MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7020541715

Linear calibration of Z-drive units

2001· other· en· W7020541715 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2001
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationFocus (optics)Quality (philosophy)Data qualityData collectionMeasure (data warehouse)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calibrating has become an increasingly important part of design especially in dynamometers. Calibration allows one to examine the accuracy in readings of devices and gives an estimate to how well the system is performing. Then feedback obtained from calibrating greatly increases the quality of data obtained in a test situation as errors in the readings may be more accurately accounted for. This report will focus on the calibration of two Z-Drive units used for IMD's Escort Tugnand will investigate two methods of analyzing the data. One method proposed by Robert Galway and the other technique more recently proposed by several employees of the Institute for Marine Dynamics.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.009

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→