MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032261120 · doi:10.1117/12.669496

Architecture for autonomy

2006· article· en· W2032261120 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Strategy and Technology
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectureSoftware architectureSoftwareSystems engineeringRemotely operated underwater vehicleComputer securitySoftware engineeringRobotMobile robotEngineeringArtificial intelligenceOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2002 Defence R&D Canada changed research direction from pure tele-operated land vehicles to general autonomy for land, air, and sea craft. The unique constraints of the military environment coupled with the complexity of autonomous systems drove DRDC to carefully plan a research and development infrastructure that would provide state of the art tools without restricting research scope. DRDC's long term objectives for its autonomy program address disparate unmanned ground vehicle (UGV), unattended ground sensor (UGS), air (UAV), and subsea and surface (UUV and USV) vehicles operating together with minimal human oversight. Individually, these systems will range in complexity from simple reconnaissance mini-UAVs streaming video to sophisticated autonomous combat UGVs exploiting embedded and remote sensing. Together, these systems can provide low risk, long endurance, battlefield services assuming they can communicate and cooperate with manned and unmanned systems. A key enabling technology for this new research is a software architecture capable of meeting both DRDC's current and future requirements. DRDC built upon recent advances in the computing science field while developing its software architecture know as the Architecture for Autonomy (AFA). Although a well established practice in computing science, frameworks have only recently entered common use by unmanned vehicles. For industry and government, the complexity, cost, and time to re-implement stable systems often exceeds the perceived benefits of adopting a modern software infrastructure. Thus, most persevere with legacy software, adapting and modifying software when and wherever possible or necessary -- adopting strategic software frameworks only when no justifiable legacy exists. Conversely, academic programs with short one or two year projects frequently exploit strategic software frameworks but with little enduring impact. The open-source movement radically changes this picture. Academic frameworks, open to public scrutiny and modification, now rival commercial frameworks in both quality and economic impact. Further, industry now realizes that open source frameworks can reduce cost and risk of systems engineering. This paper describes the Architecture for Autonomy implemented by DRDC and how this architecture meets DRDC's current needs. It also presents an argument for why this architecture should also satisfy DRDC's future requirements as well.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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