MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250946033 · doi:10.1504/ijdats.2017.088356

Cost risk analysis and learning curve in the military shipbuilding sector

2017· article· en· W4250946033 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and Strategies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTechnology Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShipbuildingLearning curveContingency planResource (disambiguation)Probabilistic logicUnit costContingencyUnit (ring theory)Cost contingencyOperations researchProduction (economics)Risk analysis (engineering)Risk managementOperations managementEngineeringComputer scienceBusinessCost estimateEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer securityCost engineeringFinanceArtificial intelligenceManagementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The learning curve shows how unit costs can be expected to fall over time. It has been demonstrated that learning is a major cost risk driver in defence acquisition projects. It can be affected by changes in processes, resource availability, and worker interest. This paper examines the risk that military ship builders may not realise expected production efficiencies. A probabilistic risk approach is used to portray the learning curve risk and estimate the corresponding cost contingency. A case study using a military shipbuilding project is presented and discussed to illustrate the methodology.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.314 · 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