Providing tailored heuristic advice to Systems Engineers
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
Abstract An INCOSE‐wide initiative has exposed at least 600 heuristics. Previous work indicates that rationalizing and simplifying this set to make it useful and memorable is difficult, if not intractable. Difficulty Assessment Tools (DATs) have been used for years to characterize the difficulty of a problem and provide tailored advice. This paper explores using a DAT to characterize the problem, and using the outputs to provide heuristic and other forms of advice. To test this approach, 50 heuristics and 10 principles were scored and embedded into an online DAT. An experiment was conducted to determine whether the DAT discussion, recommended approach, and heuristic/principles advice were useful. All teams considered the discussion very useful. As might be expected, the results indicated that the heuristic usefulness was a function of the teams' experience and familiarity with the task. The tool prioritization of suitable heuristics met developers' expectations, but was undetected by the users. This maybe because the heuristics were a hand‐picked set of 50 Heuristics from a set of 600+, meaning all were highly useful. Further work is proposed to check this assessment. The DAT usefulness results indicate that Systems Engineers should use the DAT to inform their approach throughout the lifecycle.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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