MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385508680 · doi:10.1002/iis2.12975

Prioritization of Best Practices in the Implementation of Model‐Based Systems Engineering

2022· article· en· W4385508680 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

VenueINCOSE International Symposium · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSystems Engineering Methodologies and Applications
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practiceComputer scienceContext (archaeology)PrioritizationProcess managementEngineering managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Model‐based systems engineering (MBSE) is a form of systems engineering that is reported to lead to many benefits; yet few companies have successfully implemented MBSE, partly due to a predominance of guidance for adoption that does not recognize differences in organizational context. This paper uses a combination of a literature review and semi‐structured interviews to evaluate the hypothesis that the applicability of best practices varies on a case‐by‐case basis due to factors such as company size, industry, and location. A list of best practices is compiled from existing works and validated with interviews, ultimately resulting in a more complete and accurate list of best practices, along with a recommendation that each company should uniquely assess their circumstances and prioritize this list of best practices accordingly. The findings presented in this paper provide improved guidance towards the use of best practices for successful MBSE implementation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.287 · 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