MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2575268688 · doi:10.5555/3042094.3042278

Agile design meets hybrid models: using modularity to enhance hybrid model design and use

2016· article· en· W2575268688 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

VenueWinter Simulation Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentComputer scienceModularity (biology)Key (lock)Software engineeringSystems engineeringSystem dynamicsFocus (optics)Hybrid systemDistributed computingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic modeling offers many benefits to understand the dynamics of complex systems. Hybrid modeling attempts to bring together the complementary benefits of differing dynamic modeling approaches, such as System Dynamics and Agent-based modeling, to bear on a single research question. We present here, by means of an example, a hybrid modeling technique that allows different modules to be specified separately from their implementation. This enables each module to be designed and constructed on an ad-hoc basis. This approach results in 3 benefits: it facilitates incremental development, a key focus in agile software design; it enhances the ability to test and learn from the behavior of a dynamic model; and it can help with clearer thinking about model structure, especially for those of a hybrid nature.

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)0.002
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 score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.437
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.006 · 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