11.4.3 Advancing the Canadian Capability Engineering Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Collaborative Capability Definition Engineering and Management Technology Demonstration (CapDEM TD) project is investigating Capability Engineering (CE) in order to support the Capability‐Based Planning (CBP) decision‐making process. This paper presents the evaluation effort being applied to the Capability Engineering approach, a methodology based on the systems engineering paradigm and articulated around three axes: People, Process and Materiel. Originating from the laboratories of Defence R&D Canada, the CapDEM effort is now evolving from theory into practice, based on an on‐going evaluation strategy concretely realized via three validation exercises that consist of realistic simulations of people applying the process and materiel to resolve capability gaps. This paper details the evaluation strategy and includes lessons learned from the first and second validation exercises. The tenets and expectations from the final exercises will form the final part of the paper, with the intent of providing insight into the advancement of capability engineering.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it