MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311528326 · doi:10.1177/15485129221141717

Use of agent-based modeling to model intermediate force capabilities in (counter)mobility crowd scenarios

2022· article· en· W4311528326 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

VenueThe Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation Applications Methodology Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrastructure Resilience and Vulnerability Analysis
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCellular automatonKey (lock)AnalyticsRange (aeronautics)Agency (philosophy)Representation (politics)Data scienceComputer securityEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we use an agent-based model (ABM) to run (counter)mobility scenarios to explore which characteristics of intermediate force capabilities (IFC) are relevant to these, and how they can affect outcomes in gray zone conflicts. Using an ABM called Map-Aware Non-Uniform Automata (MANA), developed by the New Zealand Defense Technology Agency, we implemented two scenarios where the friendly forces’ mobility was limited by large groups of civilians. Then, we employed data farming and analytics methods to analyze the data and identify key parameters influencing the outcomes. The main parameters appeared to be the IFC Range, Power (a measure of the duration of the effect), and Crowd Density. Future research could include a wide range of mobility scenarios and possibly a more detailed IFC representation.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.243 · 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