MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of a Soldier-Robot Teaming Synthetic Environment for Team Effectiveness Evaluation

2023· article· en· W4391308435 on OpenAlexaffabout
Scott Fang, Ming Hou, Nada Pavlovic, Simon Banbury, Murray Gamble, Siu O’Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobotComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To help enhance mission effectiveness for future dismounted soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), a Soldier-Robot Teaming (SRT) concept has been developed and accepted as a force multiplier to extend operational abilities of dismounted soldiers in the battlefield, such as reducing the number of soldiers in dangerous environments and empowering them with advanced robot technologies. To support this endeavour, the Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) Toronto Research Centre (TRC) has led a research effort 'Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for SRT in the CAF’ since 2019. In the first research phase, key stakeholders within the Department of National Defence (DND) and CAF were engaged in a series of meetings and interviews to help identify future SRT concepts across a broad range of missions and operational environments. During the stakeholder analysis, five SRT use cases were developed and validated for the CAF to capture the intended SRT CONOPS, operational priorities, operational contexts, functionality, interactions, and expected mission performance, and to support Land Operations at section and platoon levels. To further facilitate SRT concept development and experimentation activities at DRDC TRC, a synthetic modeling and simulation environment was proposed and developed, in support of future SRT effectiveness research on team communication, coordination, collaboration and trust. In the meantime, this effort can also support studies on human-machine interface and human-systems integration, as well as help carry out SRT human-in-the-loop experiments and trials, for the CAF needs of reducing soldier workload and improving team performance and effectiveness in future SRT operations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyFrench-language works237,207