MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051525750

Operating performance of passive infrared counters under different seasons

2015· dissertation· en· W7051525750 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectromagnetic Compatibility and Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfraredSensitivity (control systems)Sample (material)Statistical analysisError analysisField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research analyzes the operating performance of two commercially available passive infrared counters (PICs) of pedestrians as a function of site, summer, fall and winter seasons in terms of counter sensitivity. Three sites were selected for field analysis in Winnipeg, Canada. Based on a sample of 24,690 people counted by the two PICs from July 2014 to February 2015, this research found that with a 95 percent confidence, Eco-Counter’s sensitivity ranged from 73 to 97 percent while TRAFCO’s ranged from 57 to 97 percent related to people occlusion. On weekdays, Eco-Counter’s absolute error was 16 percent and TRAFCO’s was 18 percent. On weekends, Eco-Counter’s absolute error was 18 percent and TRAFCO’s was 21 percent. In addition to people occlusion, site, seasons, and time of week (weekday and weekend) were found to affect the operating performance of the PICs. Correction factors were also calculated per counter, site, and seasons.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.181 · 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