MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086283164 · doi:10.5555/1400549.1400667

CAMiCS: civilian activity modelling in constructive simulation

2008· article· en· W2086283164 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Levesque, François Cazzolato, Jimmy Perron, Jimmy Hogan, Tony Garneau, Bernard Moulin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEvacuation and Crowd Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrowdsRepresentation (politics)ConstructiveComputer sciencePedestrianCommand and controlTerrainGeographic information systemSimulationScale (ratio)Transport engineeringOperations researchComputer securityEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When conducting operations in urban environments, military units often have to deal with ongoing civilian activity, including regular vehicle and pedestrian traffic, congregations and even crowds. Despite the important role played by civilian activity in the conduct of military operations, simulations used for military training often fail to represent civilian entities appropriately, both in terms of density and behaviours. This paper introduces a new tool (CAMiCS) that simulates vehicle traffic and pedestrian behaviour on the scale of a whole town, for training and experimentation at the operational level. CAMiCS is implemented as a multi-agent simulation and uses the current knowledge in human behaviour representation and traffic modelling. It can be used as a standalone simulation or in combination with other simulations on an HLA network. Terrain representation in CAMiCS is done using a geographical information system (GIS). Because of that feature, CAMiCS is especially well-suited for experimentation with GIS-based command and control systems. We present the fundamental models used for behaviour representation and traffic simulation, as well as the CAMiCS architecture. The benefits for training at the operational level are discussed.

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 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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEvacuation and Crowd DynamicsFrench-language works237,207