MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2767608158

Generating Explanatory Hypotheses: Mind, Computer, Brain, and World

2005· article· en· W2767608158 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhilosophy of sciencePsychologyCognitionEpistemologySet (abstract data type)Causality (physics)Mental representationCognitive scienceInferenceCognitive psychologyExplanatory powerComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Generating Explanatory Hypotheses: Mind, Computer, Brain, and World Paul Thagard (pthagard@uwaterloo.ca) Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 Canada Introduction Lorenzo Magnani, University of Pavia, Italy Reasoning through Doing: Epistemic Mediators in Explanatory Hypothesis Generation in Science When puzzling events occur, people naturally generate hypotheses to explain them. This kind of thinking occurs in many domains, including: • Science, where researchers generate theories to explain data; • Medicine, where physicians generate diagnoses to explain patients’ symptoms; • Criminal investigation, where detectives form hypotheses to explain evidence from crime scenes; • Machinery repair, where engineers diagnose mechanical faults to explain breakdowns; • Social interaction, where people attribute emotions and other mental states to others in order to explain their behavior. The purpose of the proposed symposium is to report and discuss new investigations of the cognitive processes that generate hypotheses, from a variety of disciplinary perspectives: artificial intelligence (Langley), philosophy (Magnani), cognitive psychology (Schunn), and computational neuroscience (Thagard). In order to provide integration across these approaches, we will try to address a fundamental set of questions, including: 1. How are hypotheses, explanations, and causality represented? 2. What triggers generation of explanatory hypotheses? 3. What are the mental and neural mechanisms by which explanatory hypotheses are constructed? 4. What are the socio-cognitive constraints on hypothesis formation? The 4 speakers will also indicate the connections between hypothesis generation and other cognitive processes involved in problem solving and inference. I maintain that the philosophical analysis of model-based and manipulative abduction and of the cognitive activity of external representations and epistemic mediators is important in understanding explanatory hypothesis generation in science. This talk will discuss how concrete manipulations of the external world constitute a fundamental passage in scientific discovery and explanation. Christian Schunn, University of Pittsburgh, USA Going from Blueberries to Liquid Water on Mars: How do Scientists Form Hypotheses When the Obvious Hypothesis is Not Politically Sanctioned? Various pragmatic constraints play an important role in scientific hypothesis formation. One oft-discussed constraint is the scientist's personal attachment to previously developed theories. My talk will explore the cognitive abduction processes that JPL scientists used, as individuals and as a group, in resolving the institutional constraint in their hypothesis formation activities. The interesting comparison cases within this dataset are the constraints given by the researchers’ own prior expectations and those voiced by other researchers on the project. Paul Thagard, University of Waterloo, Canada How does the Brain Form Hypotheses? Towards a Neurologically Realistic Computational Model of Explanation. This talk will discuss explanation and hypothesis formation within the neurologically realistic computational framework used by Wagar and Thagard (Psychological Review, 2004) to investigate decision making. A neurocomputational model of hypothesis formation requires novel ways of representing hypotheses and explanations, as well as novel methods of manipulating neural networks to generate explanations. The proposed model employs neural representations of evidence that can be verbal or non-verbal (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) as well as of emotional reactions to the evidence such as puzzlement. Participants Pat Langley, Stanford University, USA Computational Discovery of Explanatory Process Models I will present an approach to computational discovery which encodes scientific models as sets of processes that incorporate differential equations, simulates these models' behavior over time, incorporates background knowledge to constrain model construction, and induces the models from time-series data. I illustrate this framework on data and models from Earth science and biology, two scientific fields in which explanatory process accounts occur frequently.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,817
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0030,006
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,210
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle