MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603651742

Designing a collaborative cross-campus airport (or other transit) simulation project: panel discussion

2008· article· en· W1603651742 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of computing sciences in colleges · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAir Traffic Management and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceImplementationOperations researchProcess (computing)QueuePremiseScheduleTransport engineeringEngineeringSoftware engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this workshop participants will design a cross-campus collaborative project built around an airport (or other transit) simulation. Computer scientists and software engineers create simulations both to understand how processes work, and to avoid catastrophes in the actual implementations of those processes. At the last CCSC-NW, an airport simulation was proposed as a promising collaborative project because it is a large, real-world problem whose implementation potentially encompasses many disciplines. It makes use of multiple data structures, the potential for a nice graphical interface, and large data flows to process. The idea is an expansion of an assignment called the Airport Problem, which has been used as an intense culminating project in a Data Structures course both at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and at Clark College in Vancouver, WA. The premise of the Airport Problem is to complete a single project with multiple data structures so that students gain an understanding of the reasoning behind using different data structures. The Airport Problem uses three data structures: an incoming queue for airplanes arriving at the airport (a DEAP or Min-Max Heap), an outgoing queue for airplanes which have landed and are ready to take off (a Red-Black Tree), and a lobby for passengers who arrive and whose airplanes have not yet landed (a 2-3 tree or a linked list). The project proposed in this workshop would expand the Airport Problem to include additional components such as graphics and networking. Depending on participants' interests as well as availability of data, the transit mode could also be changed from Airport to either Shipping or Trucking.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · 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