POINT OF CONTACT: Bruce A. ChalmersApplying a Work-Centred Exploratory Design Framework to Joint Fires Coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing design requirements and associated design concepts for a future C2 capability requires analytical tools with the power to provide design insights for systems that are first of a kind. This paper provides an overview of the principal results from applying a work-centred, constraint-based design framework, that is sensitive to such design challenges, to develop requirements for a future Joint Fires Coordination (JFC) system for the Canadian Forces (CF). In this envisioned system, all services in a joint CF operation will be able to call for fires on targets of opportunity, and the JFC capability (JFCC) will effectively integrate these calls into a fire plan and coordinate delivery of fires. Five Cognitive Systems Engineering analyses in the framework were used to acquire knowledge about JFCC work functions, processes and tasks, decision and situation awareness requirements, and information exchange needs. Several hundred design requirements and concepts, related to technology, process and organizational structure of the future JFC system were then identified. This paper reviews the design framework, and discusses
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.089 | 0.014 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".