MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DesignDEVS: Reinforcing Theoretical Principles in a Practical and Lightweight Simulation Environment

2016· article· en· W2543155682 on OpenAlexaff
Rhys Goldstein, Simon Breslav, Azam Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicSimulation Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDEVSComputer scienceScripting languageFormalism (music)Key (lock)Modeling and simulationProgramming languageSoftware engineeringDiscrete event simulationDistributed computingSimulationOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce DesignDEVS, a simulation development environment based on the Discrete Event System Specification (DEVS) formalism. DesignDEVS aims to promote understanding and appreciation of model-simulator separation, delayed binding of models, and other key principles of a systems engineering approach. To minimize installation and learning time, we embed a lightweight scripting language called Lua as the primary programming language for model implementation. Lua is extended to both enforce and communicate a number of modeling constraints implied by DEVS theory. These constraints include restrictions on state changes and data references. While not all theoretical principles are strictly enforced, we include a discussion of best practices which account for practical considerations such as modeler convenience and computational efficiency. DesignDEVS has been used for complex modeling tasks in architectural and building science research. Its unique features may aid in the teaching of DEVS.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSimulation Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207