MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2502291976 · doi:10.7249/rr999

A Review of Selected International Aircraft Spares Pooling Programs: Lessons Learned for F-35 Spares Pooling

2016· review· en· W2502291976 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark A. Lorell, James Pita

Bibliographic record

VenueRAND Corporation eBooks · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Air ForceRAND CorporationUnited States Marine CorpsU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsPoolingNavyAeronauticsJoint (building)Operations researchEngineeringPolitical scienceBusinessComputer scienceCivil engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was shared by the United States (for the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps), Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, and the United Kingdom. In 2012, these countries agreed to manage F-35 sustainment assets as a global pool. This report reviews other international military aircraft spares pooling programs from the 1950s to the present to identify lessons learned.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.132 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRAND Corporation eBooksSame topicDefense, Military, and Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207