MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7061636387

Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC). Programmatic Environmental Assessment

2002· article· en· W7061636387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermal Analysis in Power Transmission
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Multinational corporationStrategic environmental assessmentEnvironmental impact assessmentProjection (relational algebra)Pacific Rim
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RIMPAC is a multinational, sea control/power projection fleet exercise that has been performed biennially for the last 30 years. The purpose of RIMPAC is to implement a selected set of exercises that is combined into a sea control/power projection fleet training exercise in a multi-threat environment. RIMPAC exercises also demonstrate the ability of a multinational force to communicate and operate in simulated hostile scenarios. RIMPAC 2002 will be the eighteenth in a series involving forces from Australia, Canada and the United States; the twelfth involving the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force; the seventh involving the Republic of Korea Navy; and the fourth involving the Chilean Navy. The United Kingdom, France and Peru have been accepted to participate in RIMPAC 2002. RIMPAC 2002 is scheduled to be conducted from 25 June to 23 July 2002. During initial planning meetings in July 2001, the Action proponent, Commander, THIRD Fleet, gathered input from possible participants to understand the various testing and training needs. Operations personnel developed a general scenario to accommodate testing and training needs. As a result of three planning conferences considering budget and time constraints, as well as safety and environmental considerations, a final scenario and set of exercises were developed.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDefense Technical Information Center (DTIC)Same topicThermal Analysis in Power TransmissionFrench-language works237,207