MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402263126 · doi:10.62973/09-075r1

OWS-6 3D Flythrough (W3DS) Engineering Report

2009· report· en· W4402263126 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReservoir Engineering and Simulation Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJoint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear DefenseNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OWS-6 TestbedOWS testbeds are part of OGC's Interoperability Program, a global, hands-on and collaborative prototyping program designed to rapidly develop, test and deliver Engineering Reports and Chnage Requests into the OGC Specification Program, where they are formalized for public release.In OGC's Interoperability Initiatives, international teams of technology providers work together to solve specific geoprocessing interoperability problems posed by the Initiative's sponsoring organizations.OGC Interoperability Initiatives include test beds, pilot projects, interoperability experiments and interoperability support servicesall designed to encourage rapid development, testing, validation and adoption of OGC standards.In April 2008, the OGC issued a call for sponsors for an OGC Web Services, Phase 6 (OWS-6) Testbed activity.The activity completed in June 2009.There is a series of on-line demonstrations available here: http://www.opengeospatial.org/pub/www/ows6/index.htmlThe OWS-6 sponsors are organizations seeking open standards for their interoperability requirements.After analyzing their requirements, the OGC Interoperability Team recommended to the sponsors that the content of the OWS-6 initiative be organized around the following threads:1. Sensor Web Enablement (SWE)

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.656
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReservoir Engineering and Simulation MethodsFrench-language works237,207