MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224987319 · doi:10.1007/s42979-022-01122-z

Determining the Required Training Capacity Within a Military Establishment

2022· article· en· W4224987319 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSN Computer Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDefense, Military, and Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsDepartment of National Defence
FundersMinistère de la Défense Nationale
KeywordsPipeline (software)Training (meteorology)Work (physics)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)AsideMonte Carlo methodOperations researchSimulationOperations managementEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsMechanical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We address the problem of deciding how many positions to set aside for military recruits undergoing training. Within a cap on the total number of military members, we vary the ratio between positions allocated to the training pipeline versus those required in the trained effective establishment. This is done with the goal of determining the extent to which given ratios are sustainable. We use a Markovian model of the training pipeline, with parameters derived from historical personnel data. Through Monte Carlo simulation, we predict how often a given ratio allows the required trained force to be fully generated, as well as the surplus of trained personnel, it is expected to generate. We extend our previous work in this area by considering an alternative Human Resources policy that uncaps the training pipeline. Our modelling results have informed ongoing initiatives to optimize the force mix and structure of the Canadian Armed Forces.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.138 · 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