MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322866281 · doi:10.2514/6.2015-4436

Managing a Satellite Product Line Utilizing Composable Architecture Modeling

2015· article· en· W2322866281 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

VenueAIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProduct lineArchitectureSatelliteProduct (mathematics)Line (geometry)Distributed computingComputer architectureEngineeringManufacturing engineeringMathematicsAerospace engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company has developed and piloted a composable modeling methodology in the update of the A2100 satellite product line. The composable design methodology leverages the model based systems engineering language, SysML, to formally define product line variation, relationships and decisions. The composable modeling methodology extends the SysML language through the use of specific relationships and modeling patterns. Managing a satellite product line which has flexibility to serve a variety of missions defines a large and varied design space; composable modeling offers a methodology to manage and control the commonality while enabling variation in an efficient and data-rich environment. Through application of these modeling techniques Lockheed Martin SSC has enabled rapid system configuration and evaluation. This paper explores the composable modeling methodology as implemented on the A2100 product line, as well as challenges and value of maintaining and operating in a composable modeling environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.196 · 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