MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087798804 · doi:10.1109/icspt.2011.6064660

A hierarchical evaluation of space-based systems performance

2011· article· en· W2087798804 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstellationContext (archaeology)Reliability (semiconductor)Baseline (sea)Computer scienceSpace (punctuation)Service (business)Systems engineeringEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Space-based systems (SBS) technology has been advancing rapidly in terms of capability, affordability, size, and reliability. As in the commercial sector, defence and military institutions are looking to improve their space capabilities by increasing the number of smaller, more affordable, and more capable satellites that are being put into service. The military is looking to extend these capabilities at the strategic level, the operational and tactical levels. Increasing the number of satellites inevitably increases the complexity of planning for and operating the resulting constellations. Therefore, the benefit of employing more satellites must be evaluated not only to justify the increase in complexity, but also to show the significant improvements that can be achieved. In this paper, we propose a method to evaluate the performance and role of different SBS within the context of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). An example is also given to demonstrate how different numbers of SBS can improve baseline ISR capabilities.

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)0.001
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 score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.120 · 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