Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Downsizing, and consolidation of previously independent companies, has produced a clash of cultures in many companies. The problem is exacerbated by “home‐grown” product development cultures that have been around for decades and often fail to adequately integrate new disciplines such as software engineering and systems engineering. Over the years, the pace and complexity of technological development has increased. Mergers have brought together more companies with differing processes. New standards like the Software‐Capability Maturity Model® (SW‐CMM®) and Capability Maturity Model Integration® (CMMI®) have been introduced. All these changes have increased the need for developing and instituting new, integrated, and more repeatable engineering processes. Methods of introducing, and gaining acceptance of, these new processes are becoming very important to the continued competitiveness of many companies. At issue is how best to get a diverse workforce to work together to achieve extraordinary goals. Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control (LMMFC), faced with integrating two former competitors, embarked in 1999 on a course to develop a common product development culture. A primary forcing function was the use of Carnegie Mellon University's Capability Maturity Model‐Integration (CMMI®) standard. The resulting new processes are enabling employees to achieve higher goals – by increasing productivity, maximizing use of information, using proven simplified processes, increasing re‐use, and decreasing re‐work. Results to date indicate a “One Company, One Team” mentality is rapidly becoming the norm at LMMFC.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.036 |
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".