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

An Algorithmic Solution to Improve Command Centre Layout

2017· article· en· W2759087823 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

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.011
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