Recommended practice: Systems of systems considerations in the development of systems
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
This paper presents the results of an international collaboration under The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), an international organization which collaborates on technical exchange and shared research. Developed under the Systems of Systems Work Stream of the Technical Panel on Systems Engineering and Modernization. Using ISO 15288 as a framework for integrating across the practical experiences of the nations, these recommended practices bring together the collective knowledge from across the US, UK, Canada and Australia on the SoS considerations that need to be addressed at key points in the system development process. The recommended practices are intended for use by systems engineers, program managers and acquisition oversight organizations in government and industry engaged in the development of defense systems in particular, but apply generally across large systems in other domains as well. The recommended practices were developed over a three year process of iterative development with activities in each nation with each iteration to review, apply and refine the information along with open input from industry and academia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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