Joint Command Support Through Workspace Analysis, Design and Optimization (Soutien du Commandement Interarmees au Moyen de L'Analyse, de la Conception et de L'Optimisation de L'Espace de Travail)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : The current Canadian Forces (CF) transformation focuses on network enabled capabilities and promotes joint operations both within the CF and under a broad joint, inter-agency, multinational, public (JIMP) paradigm. The past a few years have witnessed an increased demand on the science and technology (S&T) support for performing ergonomic analysis and workspace design for joint operations centres. A series of studies have been conducted from 2006 to 2008 in which workspace solutions were produced for three different joint command centres. In these studies, a new design process, Alternative method for Workspace Analysis and Design (AWAND), was proposed and then further developed. A-WAND is based on integrating and streamlining existing design procedures recommended in industrial standards and is tailored to support unique operational requirements of a CF joint command centre. In addition, it emphasizes the use of analytical methods and software tools that have been developed, and therefore possessed, by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC). This report describes AWAND, documents the best design practises, and discusses future research and development (R&D) efforts that are needed to further advance DRDC's capability in this area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".