MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061737070

Sensor Placement and Diagnosability Analysis at Design Stage

2004· article· en· W7061737070 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueNPARC · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGyrotron and Vacuum Electronics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignature (topology)Set (abstract data type)Fault (geology)Fault detection and isolationTask (project management)ObservableMatrix (chemical analysis)Control theory (sociology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adequate sensors are a necessary condition for fault diagnosability. Sensor placement for diagnosis task is to study where to put the sensors so that they are the minimal set to diagnose certain faults. This paper presents a method of sensor placement based on diagnosability analysis using the simulation model in the CAD environment. The fault signature matrix is determined by the projections of different operation modes on observable variables. The minimal sensor set for detecting faults and for discriminating the faults can be computed from the fault signature matrix. We also consider that values of exogenous variables are a condition for diagnosability. By introducing the concept of virtual sensors, faults can be detectable/ discriminable based on their signatures on virtual sensors. The advantages of this approach are that not only the minimal sensor set but also the conditions of causal scopes are obtained and the procedure is fully automated.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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