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 OpenAlexaff
Abderrahmane Sokri, Ahmed Ghanmi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data Analysis Techniques and StrategiesSame topicTechnology Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207