MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018636761 · doi:10.1002/sdr.285

Using <i>Digest</i> to implement the pathway participation method for detecting influential system structure

2004· article· en· W2018636761 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Mojtahedzadeh, David F. Andersen, George P. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueSystem Dynamics Review · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSample (material)Metric (unit)SoftwareProgramming languageTheoretical computer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article briefly defines and describes the pathway participation metric (PPM), a mathematical calculation that can help to identify the linkages between the structure and behavior of a dynamic system. PPM has been implemented in an experimental piece of software called Digest , which we then present. Digest is not a simulation language, but rather a companion to any commercial system dynamics package, which accepts a text version of a simulation model and performs post formulation analysis of the model. Digest detects and displays which feedback loops are most influential in explaining a selected pattern of behavior in a model. Output from a sample Digest run is presented and described. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations77
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystem Dynamics ReviewSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207