The multi-craft problem: a distributed simulation approach using networked floating objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multi-craft problem is defined as simulating the interactions of multiple objects floating on water. This encompasses the direct interactions between water and the object, and indirect interactions between objects that occur via the water. Existing solutions generally treat the floating objects as simple 3-dimensional volumes with properties, such as weight and buoyancy. For many practical situations, these objects need to be simulated by complex rules. The simulation of ships is a case in point. As realistic water simulation itself is computationally expensive, accommodating the added complexity due to floating objects can be a difficult task. The research presented in this thesis proposes a method for distributed water simulation where the scope of each participating simulation is chosen by the model that governs it. For the multi-craft problem, this means simulating the water in one node and simulating the floating objects in other nodes in a network. Details of two prototypes created as part of this research are presented to show its applicability for solving this problem and how implementation of such a scheme can be achieved. Its effects on modularity, performance, scalability and reliability are also illustrated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".