MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759087823 · doi:10.1177/1541931213601592

An Algorithmic Solution to Improve Command Centre Layout

2017· article· en· W2759087823 on OpenAlexaff
Wenbi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics Optimization
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceGenetic algorithmFitness functionString (physics)Swap (finance)Selection (genetic algorithm)Encoding (memory)Mathematical optimizationProcess (computing)AlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A genetic algorithm was developed in this study to optimize the spatial layout of military command centres. The algorithm uses a textual string as the genetic encoding method, two genetic operations (i.e., selection and swap) for simulating an evolution process, a fitness function that reflects a human factors characterization of workplace layout requirements, and an elitist strategy for improving its search efficiency. To examine the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm, a simulation experiment was conducted using a hypothetical one dimensional layout problem. The results revealed that the algorithm identified the complete list of solutions that are theoretically optimal for the test problem. Compared to exhaustive search, the proposed algorithm increased search efficiency by more than 99%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual MeetingSame topicAdvanced Manufacturing and Logistics OptimizationFrench-language works237,207