MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150806991 · doi:10.1109/csew.2008.52

Creating Emergency Management Training Simulations through Ontologies Integration

2008· article· en· W2150806991 on OpenAlexaff
Regina B. Araújo, Rafaela Vilela da Rocha, Márcio Roberto de Campos, Azzedine Boukerche

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArchitectureSet (abstract data type)Emergency managementProgrammerTraining (meteorology)Software engineeringControl (management)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceEmbedded system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training simulations, which involve the collaboration of multiple users (represented as avatars), sharing a common virtual environment, are difficult to build, control and manage. This paper describes an architecture to support non-programmer emergency management trainers to rapidly create different instances of powerful and complex training simulations. The novel aspects of this architecture, that makes it different from other related systems, are the innovative techniques and concepts that are used. Events collected from sensor networks deployed on physical environments subject to emergency situations can be added to the simulation scenarios being created. A set of ontologies was devised to create powerful training simulation instances, such as different fire classes, different fire fighting techniques, specific rescue tactics, etc. A case study was implemented to validate the architecture. The results show that this system can be a powerful tool for the creation of complex training simulations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations18
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207