MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142061845 · doi:10.1109/wsc.2010.5679055

A movement options analysis simulation tool for the Canadian Operational Support Command

2010· article· en· W3142061845 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

VenueProceedings of the 2010 Winter Simulation Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFacility Location and Emergency Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed ForcesDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMovement (music)Lift (data mining)Plan (archaeology)Asset (computer security)Operations researchRisk analysis (engineering)SimulationComputer securityEngineeringBusinessData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides an overview of a movement options analysis simulation tool that has been developed for the Canadian Forces. The aim of the Movement Estimator Tool (MET) is to enable movement staff to quickly compare movement plan options and determine the “best” plan. Given a list of items to be moved, specifications for the lift assets that could be utilized, and a possible line of communication, the MET uses simulation to estimate the time and cost of the move for multiple possible movement plans, and provides a graphical representation of the cost/time tradeoff region. Movement staff can then decide upon the best course of action, taking into account issues such as lift asset availability, and time and budgetary constraints. The MET is used to analyze a hypothetical redeployment of the Canadian Forces' Disaster Assistance Response Team from Haiti.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.230 · 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