MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W133269243

Normative Systems: the meeting point between Jurisprudence and Information Technology?A position paper

2007· article· en· W133269243 on OpenAlex
Luigi Logrippo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Trends in Software Methodologies, Tools and Techniques · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeConsistency (knowledge bases)JurisprudenceComputer scienceDefeasible estateCompleteness (order theory)Defeasible reasoningManagement scienceEpistemologyInformation systemArtificial intelligenceLawPolitical scienceMathematicsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is argued that there are many concepts and methods in common between policy systems used in Information Technology and Jurisprudence, i.e. legal theory. These concepts are found in the research area of 'normative systems' which encompasses them and provides a framework for unifying research. It is further argued that advantages can be accrued to both research areas by favoring interchanges of methods and principles in this unifying framework. A distinction is made between norms in rule style and norms in requirements style. Issues of completeness, consistency and conflicts are considered. Concepts that are useful in this research area include defeasible logic and ontologies. Useful tools are theorem provers and model checkers.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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