MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2243346683 · doi:10.1177/0037549715590594

Grand challenges for modeling and simulation: simulation everywhere—from cyberinfrastructure to clouds to citizens

2015· article· en· W2243346683 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMULATION · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyberinfrastructureComposabilityCloud computingKey (lock)Grand ChallengesDemocratizationField (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Computer scienceBig dataModeling and simulationData sciencePolitical scienceSimulationComputer securityPoliticsDemocracyDistributed computingPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling & Simulation (M&S) is making successful contributions to different areas in industry and academia. However, there are certain key issues that are preventing the field from addressing larger domains and from achieving wide-scale impact. Formulating these as grand challenges arguably focuses attention on these key issues and may bring a critical mass of effort to bear that could result in a major leap forward. This article is one of several concurrent activities aimed at reinvigorating the debate on grand challenges in M&S. These grand challenges include Big Simulation, human behavior, composability, cloud-based M&S, reproducibility in M&S research and the democratization of M&S. Two themes emerge: the need for large-scale cloud-based cyberinfrastructures for M&S and the democratized access to M&S and its outputs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.279
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.146 · 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