MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141865314 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2008.4736186

A discrete event simulation model for examining future sustainability of Canadian Forces operations

2008· article· en· W3141865314 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venue2008 Winter Simulation Conference · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware deploymentSustainabilityContingencyEvent (particle physics)Discrete event simulationContingency planComputer scienceUnit (ring theory)Economic shortageOperations researchTask (project management)Perspective (graphical)Set (abstract data type)Proof of conceptEngineeringSimulationSystems engineeringMathematicsComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a proof-of-concept discrete-event simulation model for examining the ability of the canadian forces (CF) to sustain operations, from a human resources perspective. Given a set of future operations for the CF, ranging from known ongoing domestic commitments to possible international missions, the goal is to identify potential shortages of deployable personnel by occupation, rank and unit, up to five years in advance of actual deployment. As a demonstration case, the proof-of-concept model was applied to a contingency analysis of the sustainability of Task Force Afghanistan over a three year planning horizon.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.172 · 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