Grand Challenges on the Theory of Modeling and Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modeling & Simulation (M&S) is used in many different fields and has made many significant contributions. As a field in its own right, there have been many advances in methodologies and technologies. In 2002 a workshop was held in Dagstuhl, Germany, to reflect on the grand challenges facing M&S. Ten years on, a series of M & S Grand Challenge activities are marking a decade of progress and are providing an opportunity to reflect and plan for the future. This second Grand Challenge Panel brings together a new set of experts from both industry and academia to reflect on M&S Grand Challenges. Themes include big simulation, coordinated modeling, large scale systems modeling, human behavioral modelling, composability, funding availability, cloud-based M&S, engineering replicability into computational models, democratization of M&S, multi-domain design, executing and targeting hardware platforms and education. It is hoped that these activities will provide inspiration to those already working in or with M&S and those just beginning their career.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".