MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W382179484

Validating DoD Architectures: The Promise of Systems Engineering

2006· article· en· W382179484 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph P. Reynolds

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringArchitectureArchitecture frameworkInteroperabilityEngineering managementEngineeringComputer scienceProcess (computing)The Open Group Architecture FrameworkExecutableProcess managementEnterprise architectureEnterprise architecture frameworkSystems architecture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today's needs for interoperability and portfolio management, across military organizations worldwide, lead to increased focus on architecture development. Architecture frameworks are sponsored by Defense Departments in Australia, Canada, France, Korea, United Kingdom and United States. The majority of today’s efforts in architecture development focus on generation of disparate architecture views, seemingly without the benefit and rigor offered by systems engineering. This paper describes the DoDAF validator–a Model Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach to the architecture development process. The approach is an extension to a proven systems engineering process that creates a win-win scenario for executive oversight team as well as the operational and engineering communities. The process also ensures that interoperability based on executable design verification leads to program success and consistent and accurate architecture perspectives for further analysis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative IdentityFrench-language works237,207