A multi-objective optimization approach to selecting sets of training devices
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A variety of training devices are available for preparing soldiers to employ small arms in combat. This variety exists because each type of device is better suited to some training tasks than others. All have their particular strengths and weaknesses that must be managed to deliver a comprehensive training system (Frank et al., 2000). Fielding an efficient set of training devices requires selection of the right types and quantities of training devices.In this paper, a methodology for identifying an efficient set of devices for infantry small arms training is developed. A template for describing the training requirements is created that identifies the tasks to be trained, numbers of trained personnel required, and when they are needed. The Stochastic Fleet Estimation (SaFE) model (Willick et al. 2010) is adapted to the small arms training problem and subsequently used within a multi-objective optimization risk assessment framework to select promising combinations and quantities of devices. This approach provides those acquiring and operating training devices with an analytic basis for selecting parsimonious sets of training devices while understanding the limitations of various training system options.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it