MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075482677 · doi:10.1109/mci.2012.2200628

Military Fleet Mix Computation and Analysis [Application Notes]

2012· article· en· W2075482677 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

VenueIEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicProduct Development and Customization
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputationOperations researchCriticalityFleet managementComputational intelligenceObjectivity (philosophy)Risk analysis (engineering)AeronauticsEngineeringBusinessTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major financial expense for any military is the acquisition, operation, and maintenance of vehicles such as ships [1] and aircraft [2]. For example, the U.S. Air Force estimates that the acquisition of the F-35 fighter aircraft will cost $156 million each [3], hence even slight improvements in fleet efficiency and/or effectiveness can save governments large amounts of money or, using the same budget, can buy better equipment. Such high costs have driven the development and application of optimization and simulation methodologies to problems of military fleet mix computation and analysis. The complexity of military fleet mix problems, due in large part to the uncertainty, multi-objectivity, and temporal criticality of military missions, has resulted in the increased use of computational intelligence (CI) methods for solving them.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.239 · 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