MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997829244 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-1452

Open Mission Systems Design Considerations for Optimal Fusion Performance

2020· article· en· W2997829244 on OpenAlex
Thomas Frey, Kent R. Engebretson, David K. Faulk

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

VenueAIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFlexibility (engineering)Risk analysis (engineering)ArchitectureSystems engineeringKey (lock)Open architectureSensor fusionInterface (matter)Reliability engineeringDistributed computingEmbedded systemEngineeringComputer securityOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Future mission systems architectures are being designed to support open-system standards that include common interfaces in order to reduce the cost and integration time of adding or replacing sensors. While intended to spawn innovation, competition, and flexibility, if care is not taken in defining these open systems, it can lead to a significant degradation in accuracy and performance. This paper explores how these poor decisions can lead to performance limitations and identifies considerations for an open architecture that minimizes or avoids this loss of performance through small changes to the sensor requirements, key updates to common interface standards, and judicious architecture design decisions.

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 categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.203 · 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