Context, Composition, Automation, and Communication: The C <sup>2</sup> AC Roadmap for Modeling and Simulation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulation has become, in many application areas, a sine qua non . Most recently, COVID-19 has underlined the importance of simulation studies and limitations in current practices and methods. We identify four goals of methodological work for addressing these limitations. The first is to provide better support for capturing, representing, and evaluating the context of simulation studies, including research questions, assumptions, requirements, and activities contributing to a simulation study. In addition, the composition of simulation models and other simulation studies’ products must be supported beyond syntactical coherence, including aspects of semantics and purpose, enabling their effective reuse. A higher degree of automating simulation studies will contribute to more systematic, standardized simulation studies and their efficiency. Finally, it is essential to invest increased effort into effectively communicating results and the processes involved in simulation studies to enable their use in research and decision making. These goals are not pursued independently of each other, but they will benefit from and sometimes even rely on advances in other sub-fields. In this article, we explore the basis and interdependencies evident in current research and practice and delineate future research directions based on these considerations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it