MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Using Required Operational Capabilities to Connect Operational and Technical Requirements

2008· article· en· W1928934980 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNaval Engineers Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNavySystems engineeringNaval architectureOperational riskArchitectureService (business)EngineeringOperational planningComputer scienceEngineering managementRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the fundamental challenges facing an engineering development team is to understand the operational objectives and goals of a system and how it will be applied in real‐world situations. The Navy currently uses Required Operational Capabilities and the Projected Operating Environment (ROC/POE) to define and measure the training needs and operational capabilities for a ship class once it has been introduced into fleet service. We show how the ROC/POE can be used as an upfront engineering tool to translate the CG(X) concept of operations into mission‐based operational needs and objectives, which then drive the system definition, architecture, and design. The analysis of these missions in a holistic fashion will enable the Navy to fully understand the behavior of the ship, control costs, and reduce the risk of failing to meet warfighter needs.

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)0.000
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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.205 · 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