MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078005650 · doi:10.1177/0037549706073698

Applying Cell-DEVS Methodology for Modeling the Environment

2006· article· en· W2078005650 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Wainer

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceCellular automatonFormalism (music)Distributed computingUsabilityDiscrete event simulationAutomatonModeling and simulationTheoretical computer scienceSimulationArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research efforts have focused on the analysis of environmental systems using cellular models. Although most of the existing solutions are based on the cellular automata formalism, this technique has some problems that constrain its power, usability and feasibility for studying large complex systems. Instead, combining cellular automata with discrete event systems specifications (DEVS) showed excellent results in terms of quality and performance. Despite these encouraging results, the environmental science/engineering community still prefers more traditional approaches, as DEVS-based techniques require a fundamental change of the modeling and simulation paradigm, while entailing expertise in advanced programming, distributed computing, etc. Cell-DEVS and the CD++ toolkit were created to address these problems: they simplify the construction of complex cellular models by allowing simple and intuitive model specification. The discrete event nature of the formalism provides better precision and performance, and models can run in different simulation environments (single user, real-time, distributed/parallel) without special expertise required. Environmental applications can be easily constructed, making it possible for users with basic training in the techniques and software tools to face the study of complex problems. We present the definition of different models of environmental applications, including the pollution on a basin, fire spreading, watershed formation and viability of a population, focusing on how to define such applications using Cell-DEVS methodology, using an approach that facilitates this paradigm shift.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations57
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIMULATIONSame topicCellular Automata and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207