Measures of effectiveness for high-level fusion
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current advances in technology, sensor collection, data storage, and data distribution have afforded more complex, distributed, and operational information fusion systems (IFSs). IFSs notionally consist of low-level (data collection, registration, and association in time and space) and high-level fusion (user coordination, situational awareness, and mission control). Low-level IFSs typically rely on standard metrics for evaluation such as timeliness, accuracy, and confidence. Given the broader use of IFSs, it is also important to look at high-level fusion processes and determine a set of metrics to test IFSs, such as workload, throughput, and cost. Three types of measures (measures of performance MOP, measures of effectiveness MOE, and measures of merit MOM) are summarized. In this paper, we seek to describe MOEs for High-Level Fusion (HLF) based on developments in Quality of Service (QOS) and Quality of Information (QOI) that support the user and the machine, respectively. We define a HLF MOE based on (1) information quality, (2) robustness, and (3) information gain. We demonstrate the HLF MOE based for a maritime domain situation awareness example.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it