MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Validating a System Architecture Model (SAM) for a Department of Defense (DoD) Acquisition Program Using a Phased Approach

2019· article· en· W2975232136 on OpenAlexaff
Gene Rosenthal

Bibliographic record

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)ReuseSoftware engineeringFocus (optics)Set (abstract data type)Systems architectureSystems engineeringArchitectureInformation systemProgramming languageEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the benefits of taking of Model‐Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to capturing information such as system design, requirements, and verification information within a digital, object‐oriented System Architecture Model (SAM) is it eliminates the risk of manually creating a set of text‐based documents that must be maintained separately for consistency. Digital definition of this information eases configuration management and allows reuse, so that engineers can focus more on the technical challenges of system development and less on the tedium of document management. To ensure the SAM accurately reflects system description, uses consistent terms, and content is not duplicated, the model must be validated. This paper recaps the journey taken by a legacy DoD Acquisition Program transition of safety critical functions from a document‐centric to a model‐based environment, but the focus will be on model validation.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINCOSE International SymposiumSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207