MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531714509 · doi:10.5555/1366071.1366089

Nearness of Objects: Extension of Approximation Space Model

2007· article· en· W1531714509 on OpenAlex

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

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisjoint setsRough setExtension (predicate logic)Relation (database)MathematicsSpace (punctuation)Focus (optics)Set (abstract data type)Feature (linguistics)Discrete mathematicsPure mathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem considered in this paper is the extension of an approximation space to include a relation. Approximation spaces were introduced by Zdzis?aw Pawlak during the early 1980s as frameworks for classifying objects by means of attributes. Pawlak introduced approximations as a means of approximating one set of objects with another set of objects using an indiscernibility relation that is based on a comparison between the feature values of objects. Until now, the focus has been on the overlap between sets. It is possible to introduce a relation that can be used to determine the nearness of sets of objects that are possibly disjoint and, yet, qualitatively near to each other. Several members of a family of relations are introduced in this article. The contribution of this article is the introduction of a relation that makes it possible to extend Pawlak's model for an approximation space and to consider the extension of generalized approximations spaces.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.234 · 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