MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097397784

Approved for release by

2001· article· en· W7097397784 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerospace and Aviation Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCockpitRadarCrewHigh-level architectureAviationFlight simulatorFlight envelopeTask (project management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2001 Sa majeste la reine, reprcsentcc par la ministre dc la Defense nationale, 2001 Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDQ has been developing a low cost means to evaluate the integration of new display equipment for the Air Force. The result has been the Aircraft Crewstation Demonstrator (ACD), which is capable of simulating the cockpit of an aircraft for human factors evaluation (HFE). Li order to support fiiture display upgrades within the cockpit of the CF-18, DRDC contracted an HFE study of the CF-18 displays, especially the radar displays associated with radar and data link. Earlier work at the Defence Research Establishment Ottawa (DREO) had resulted in a high fidelity simulation of the air to air modes of a fighter radar. In order to develop as representative display as possible, a task to integrate the ACD with the DREO radar simulation as a distributed simulation was included with the HFE study. This report describes the use of the high level architecture (HLA) to combine these two disparate simulations into one distributed simulation. The results indicate that HLA is an effective means of combining different models to provide an improved simulation to the user.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerospace and Aviation TechnologyFrench-language works237,207