MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

7.2.2 Developing the Next Generation of the INCOSE Systems Engineering Competency Framework

2014· article· en· W1583905402 on OpenAlexaff
Don Gelosh, John Snoderly, Mimi Heisey, James F. Anthony, Ken Nidiffer

Bibliographic record

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering managementSystems engineeringEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the proposed development of an INCOSE Systems Engineering (SE) Competency Framework. This framework will be developed as an evolution of the current INCOSE United Kingdom (UK) SE Competencies Framework (INCOSE, 2010). The INCOSE Competency Working Group (CWG) is conducting this project in collaboration with the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), SE Division, Education and Training Committee to develop a common approach to the definition of an SE Competency Framework.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINCOSE International SymposiumSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207