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
In maritime surveillance, the volume of information to be processed is very large and there is a great deal of uncertainty about the data. There are many vessels at sea at every point in time, and the vast majority of them pose no threat to security. Sifting through all of the benign activity to find unusual activities is a difficult problem. The problem is made even more difficult by the fact that the available data about vessel activities is both incomplete and inconsistent. In order to manage this uncertainty, automated anomaly detection software can be very useful in the early detection of threats to security. This paper introduces a high-level architecture for an anomaly detection system based on a formal model of beliefs with respect to each entity in some domain of interest. In this framework, the system has beliefs about the intentions of each vessel in the maritime domain. If the vessel behaves in an unexpected manner, these intentions are revised and a human operations centre worker is notified. This approach is flexible, scalable, and easily manages inconsistent information. Moreover, the approach has the pragmatic advantage that it uses expert information to inform decision making, but the required information is easily obtained through simple ranking exercises.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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