A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models
Purpose - The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. "By-eye" c...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Compel 2005-12, Vol.24 (4), p.1078-1092 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1092 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1078 |
container_title | Compel |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Coleby, D.E. Duffy, A.P. |
description | Purpose - The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. "By-eye" comparisons can lead to inconsistencies and inherent subjectivity. This paper establishes a "visual" benchmark by which comparisons can be made and therefore used to assist in the development of an algorithmic approach to data comparison.Design methodology approach - This new method presented here is based on the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale, which is a test pilot's evaluation-rating instrument. This has been modified through qualitative research. The assertion that the rating scale will leave the group mean response unaltered but will reduce the variance has been statistically tested.Findings - The proposed rating scale provides a calibration technique by which to benchmark comparisons. The scale also reduces subjectivity by producing an overall quantitative measure of similarity. The paper concludes with an application of the rating scale to assessment of a candidate algorithmic approach against correlation.Research limitations implications - The research findings are based on small data sets, which is a limit imposed by the industrial environment in which this scale will be used.Practical implications - This paper provides a tool to overcome some of the key substantial difficulties in communicating similarity or difference, namely that "similarity" and "difference" have no stand-alone definition, there is a lack of a shared language for the comparisons and little commonality for a decision-making framework.Originality value - This paper provides modellers and experimentalists in computational electromagnetics (particularly electromagnetic compatibility) with a structured approach to quantifying the quality of comparative results. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1108/03321640510615472 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_istex</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_4W2_62N83ZNZ_N</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>35066773</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-9d2e44b52f749e164ce37a6e6b7f07eeb53e001230f0c7c1922618f7babc046a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkclKxEAQhhtRcFwewFvw4Mlo9Z4ch0FHQcaLInhpOkm1RDPJ2J0M-vb2EPHggnWpw__9tRJyROGMUsjOgXNGlQBJQVEpNNsiEwZSpFKB2iaTjZ5GIN8leyE8Q4xcwoTMp8m6DoNtkrrt0a889ravuzbxMbVPSShtg4nrfLK2TV2NWueSdliir6OYLLsKm3BAdpxtAh5-5n1yf3lxN7tKb27n17PpTVoKCX2aVwyFKCRzWuQY5ymRa6tQFdqBRiwkRwDKODgodUlzxhTNnC5sUYJQlu-Tk7HuynevA4beLOtQYtPYFrshGC5BKa35vyDLNNc0UxE8_gY-d4Nv4xKGQZ6znIKIEB2h0ncheHRm5eul9e-Ggtk8wPx4QPSko6cOPb59Gax_MSr2lkY8MKPYIuOPi0eziPzpyGM8rW2qL8eP0mZVuYjD7_jfE30AL-mhbw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>209929104</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models</title><source>Emerald Journals</source><creator>Coleby, D.E. ; Duffy, A.P.</creator><creatorcontrib>Coleby, D.E. ; Duffy, A.P.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose - The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. "By-eye" comparisons can lead to inconsistencies and inherent subjectivity. This paper establishes a "visual" benchmark by which comparisons can be made and therefore used to assist in the development of an algorithmic approach to data comparison.Design methodology approach - This new method presented here is based on the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale, which is a test pilot's evaluation-rating instrument. This has been modified through qualitative research. The assertion that the rating scale will leave the group mean response unaltered but will reduce the variance has been statistically tested.Findings - The proposed rating scale provides a calibration technique by which to benchmark comparisons. The scale also reduces subjectivity by producing an overall quantitative measure of similarity. The paper concludes with an application of the rating scale to assessment of a candidate algorithmic approach against correlation.Research limitations implications - The research findings are based on small data sets, which is a limit imposed by the industrial environment in which this scale will be used.Practical implications - This paper provides a tool to overcome some of the key substantial difficulties in communicating similarity or difference, namely that "similarity" and "difference" have no stand-alone definition, there is a lack of a shared language for the comparisons and little commonality for a decision-making framework.Originality value - This paper provides modellers and experimentalists in computational electromagnetics (particularly electromagnetic compatibility) with a structured approach to quantifying the quality of comparative results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0332-1649</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2054-5606</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/03321640510615472</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CODUDU</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Benchmarks ; Comparative analysis ; Decision making ; Electromagnetism ; Numerical analysis ; Qualitative research ; Ratings & rankings ; Simulation ; Studies ; Tacit knowledge</subject><ispartof>Compel, 2005-12, Vol.24 (4), p.1078-1092</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Copyright Emerald Group Publishing, Limited 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-9d2e44b52f749e164ce37a6e6b7f07eeb53e001230f0c7c1922618f7babc046a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-9d2e44b52f749e164ce37a6e6b7f07eeb53e001230f0c7c1922618f7babc046a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03321640510615472/full/pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03321640510615472/full/html$$EHTML$$P50$$Gemerald$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,961,11616,27903,27904,52663,52666</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coleby, D.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffy, A.P.</creatorcontrib><title>A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models</title><title>Compel</title><description>Purpose - The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. "By-eye" comparisons can lead to inconsistencies and inherent subjectivity. This paper establishes a "visual" benchmark by which comparisons can be made and therefore used to assist in the development of an algorithmic approach to data comparison.Design methodology approach - This new method presented here is based on the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale, which is a test pilot's evaluation-rating instrument. This has been modified through qualitative research. The assertion that the rating scale will leave the group mean response unaltered but will reduce the variance has been statistically tested.Findings - The proposed rating scale provides a calibration technique by which to benchmark comparisons. The scale also reduces subjectivity by producing an overall quantitative measure of similarity. The paper concludes with an application of the rating scale to assessment of a candidate algorithmic approach against correlation.Research limitations implications - The research findings are based on small data sets, which is a limit imposed by the industrial environment in which this scale will be used.Practical implications - This paper provides a tool to overcome some of the key substantial difficulties in communicating similarity or difference, namely that "similarity" and "difference" have no stand-alone definition, there is a lack of a shared language for the comparisons and little commonality for a decision-making framework.Originality value - This paper provides modellers and experimentalists in computational electromagnetics (particularly electromagnetic compatibility) with a structured approach to quantifying the quality of comparative results.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Benchmarks</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Electromagnetism</subject><subject>Numerical analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Ratings & rankings</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tacit knowledge</subject><issn>0332-1649</issn><issn>2054-5606</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkclKxEAQhhtRcFwewFvw4Mlo9Z4ch0FHQcaLInhpOkm1RDPJ2J0M-vb2EPHggnWpw__9tRJyROGMUsjOgXNGlQBJQVEpNNsiEwZSpFKB2iaTjZ5GIN8leyE8Q4xcwoTMp8m6DoNtkrrt0a889ravuzbxMbVPSShtg4nrfLK2TV2NWueSdliir6OYLLsKm3BAdpxtAh5-5n1yf3lxN7tKb27n17PpTVoKCX2aVwyFKCRzWuQY5ymRa6tQFdqBRiwkRwDKODgodUlzxhTNnC5sUYJQlu-Tk7HuynevA4beLOtQYtPYFrshGC5BKa35vyDLNNc0UxE8_gY-d4Nv4xKGQZ6znIKIEB2h0ncheHRm5eul9e-Ggtk8wPx4QPSko6cOPb59Gax_MSr2lkY8MKPYIuOPi0eziPzpyGM8rW2qL8eP0mZVuYjD7_jfE30AL-mhbw</recordid><startdate>20051201</startdate><enddate>20051201</enddate><creator>Coleby, D.E.</creator><creator>Duffy, A.P.</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SP</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K7-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0N</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051201</creationdate><title>A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models</title><author>Coleby, D.E. ; Duffy, A.P.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c450t-9d2e44b52f749e164ce37a6e6b7f07eeb53e001230f0c7c1922618f7babc046a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Benchmarks</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Electromagnetism</topic><topic>Numerical analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Ratings & rankings</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tacit knowledge</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coleby, D.E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duffy, A.P.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Electronics & Communications Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Computer Science Database</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Computing Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Compel</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coleby, D.E.</au><au>Duffy, A.P.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models</atitle><jtitle>Compel</jtitle><date>2005-12-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1078</spage><epage>1092</epage><pages>1078-1092</pages><issn>0332-1649</issn><eissn>2054-5606</eissn><coden>CODUDU</coden><abstract>Purpose - The comparison of large volumes of complex data resulting from numerical modelling in computational electromagnetics is a demanding task, especially when validating the performance of numerical models against experimental results and testing experimental repeatability. "By-eye" comparisons can lead to inconsistencies and inherent subjectivity. This paper establishes a "visual" benchmark by which comparisons can be made and therefore used to assist in the development of an algorithmic approach to data comparison.Design methodology approach - This new method presented here is based on the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale, which is a test pilot's evaluation-rating instrument. This has been modified through qualitative research. The assertion that the rating scale will leave the group mean response unaltered but will reduce the variance has been statistically tested.Findings - The proposed rating scale provides a calibration technique by which to benchmark comparisons. The scale also reduces subjectivity by producing an overall quantitative measure of similarity. The paper concludes with an application of the rating scale to assessment of a candidate algorithmic approach against correlation.Research limitations implications - The research findings are based on small data sets, which is a limit imposed by the industrial environment in which this scale will be used.Practical implications - This paper provides a tool to overcome some of the key substantial difficulties in communicating similarity or difference, namely that "similarity" and "difference" have no stand-alone definition, there is a lack of a shared language for the comparisons and little commonality for a decision-making framework.Originality value - This paper provides modellers and experimentalists in computational electromagnetics (particularly electromagnetic compatibility) with a structured approach to quantifying the quality of comparative results.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/03321640510615472</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0332-1649 |
ispartof | Compel, 2005-12, Vol.24 (4), p.1078-1092 |
issn | 0332-1649 2054-5606 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_istex_primary_ark_67375_4W2_62N83ZNZ_N |
source | Emerald Journals |
subjects | Algorithms Benchmarks Comparative analysis Decision making Electromagnetism Numerical analysis Qualitative research Ratings & rankings Simulation Studies Tacit knowledge |
title | A visual interpretation rating scale for validation of numerical models |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T09%3A45%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_istex&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20visual%20interpretation%20rating%20scale%20for%20validation%20of%20numerical%20models&rft.jtitle=Compel&rft.au=Coleby,%20D.E.&rft.date=2005-12-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1078&rft.epage=1092&rft.pages=1078-1092&rft.issn=0332-1649&rft.eissn=2054-5606&rft.coden=CODUDU&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/03321640510615472&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_istex%3E35066773%3C/proquest_istex%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=209929104&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |