MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123231389 · doi:10.2514/6.2006-6724

Mission-Based Simulation Software Development for Optimizing Air Vehicle Life Cycle Costs

2006· article· en· W2123231389 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin Allen, John Alton Schroeder, Rolf F. Orsagh, James Dzakowic

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwareSystems engineeringComponent (thermodynamics)Reliability (semiconductor)EngineeringAir combatArchitectureTest benchComputer scienceReliability engineeringAeronauticsEmbedded systemOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout the years the USAF has had a plethora of logistics and maintenance computer programs deve loped for specific applications. Current air vehicle rea diness initiatives necessitate the need to integrate relevant computer programs into a real -time mission -based environment , to help the USAF to manage and mitigate assoc iated logistics and maintenance life cycle costs (LCC). To address the USAF requirement, the contractor team co nsisting of Impact Technologies, the Boeing Company , and Battelle is developing a PC - based, test bench software architecture capable of performing mi ssion -based logistics and maintenance analyses and LCC suppo rt modeling. The environment of the test bench allows a n operator to configure a simulation, which i ncludes selecting a military air vehicle model, a mission mix, and usage and cost models. Prior to a simulation run the operator identifies whi ch air vehicle subsystem(s) or component(s) will be assessed by selected reliability and cost algorithms. The operator also has the capability to assess inherent cost drivers of technological inserts. This paper will discuss the d evelopment of the missio n-based test bench software architecture and how it will assist the USAF in am eliorating air vehicle logistics and maintenance LCC. Also architectural d esign, functionality, concept of operations, features, Simulation -Based R&D support, and com me rcialization strategy will be addressed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and ExhibitSame topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207