Collaboration and communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mission- and life-critical Ultra-Large-Scale (ULS) systems are increasingly prevalent and networked in many domains, including business, aviation, communication, defense, finance, health, and public utilities. Such systems are often too complex for generally centralized methods to work well for such tasks as requirements discovery, development, system integration, test, deployment, configuration, operation protection, and evolution. Yet today we lack sound methods and technologies for distributing these tasks across large ecosystems of system production. What technical, legal, contractual, and cultural frameworks are needed to enable global partners with independent, sometimes conflicting agendas, to function effectively in the execution of such tasks? Can a competitive and collaborative distributed design ecosystem deliver value and robustness over time consistent with demands for quality, intellectual property protection, and other such requirements? Join this panel of industry experts and academic researchers who will share and debate their perspectives and lay out a vision for the future.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.012 |
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".