MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105466452 · doi:10.1109/naecon.2011.6183090

Using the C-OODA model for CIMIC analysis

2011· article· en· W2105466452 on OpenAlexaff
Erik Blasch, Richard Breton, Pierre Valin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntelligence analysisComputer scienceAction (physics)Military intelligenceDecision support systemDecision analysisCognitive modelArtificial intelligenceOperations researchCognitionEngineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we use the Cognitive Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (C-OODA) model in a Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) analysis. CIMIC requires intelligent decision making over many activities, variables, and effects. We utilize the Complex Decision Making Experimental Platform (CODEM) from Lafond, DuCharme, and Rioux to provide situation observation, environmental orientation, relational decision making, and action selection, evaluation, and feedback. With the development of complex CIMIC activities, users require effects-based analysis of all civil and military actions for contextual reasoning and situation understanding. For pragmatic information CIMIC system design and analysis, the user (commander or operator/analyst) needs timely and accurate information to conduct proactive actionable intelligence over complex situations. In this paper, we use the C-OODA model in a CIMIC analysis using the CODEM simulation to support the modeling of stability and sustainment operations.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.406
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.075 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSystems Engineering Methodologies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207