MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1534641784 · doi:10.1609/aimag.v36i1.2575

Reports of the AAAI 2014 Conference Workshops

2015· article· en· W1534641784 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stefano V. Albrecht, André M. S. Barreto, Darius Braziunas, David L. Buckeridge, Heriberto Cuayáhuitl, Nina Dethlefs, Markus Endres, Amir‐massoud Farahmand, Mark S. Fox, Lutz Frommberger, Sam Ganzfried, Sébastien Guillet, Yolanda Gil, Lawrence Hunter, Arnav Jhala, Kristian Kersting, George Konidaris, Freddy Lécué, Sheila A. McIlraith, Sriraam Natarajan, Zeinab Noorian, David Poole, Rémi Ronfard, Alessandro Saffiotti, Arash Shaban‐Nejad, Biplav Srivastava, Gerald Tesauro, Rosario Uceda‐Sosa, Guy Van den Broeck, Martijn van Otterlo, Byron Wallace, Paul Weng, Jenna Wiens, Jie Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Magazine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicData Quality and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAnalyticsApplications of artificial intelligenceData scienceIntelligence analysisRoboticsBig dataRobot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AAAI‐14 Workshop program was held Sunday and Monday, July 27– 28, 2014, at the Québec City Convention Centre in Québec, Canada. The AAAI‐14 workshop program included 15 workshops covering a wide range of topics in artificial intelligence. The titles of the workshops were Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; Artificial Intelligence Applied to Assistive Technologies and Smart Environments; Cognitive Computing for Augmented Human Intelligence; Computer Poker and Imperfect Information; Discovery Informatics; Incentives and Trust in Electronic Communities; Intelligent Cinematography and Editing; Machine Learning for Interactive Systems: Bridging the Gap Between Perception, Action, and Communication; Modern Artificial Intelligence for Health Analytics; Multiagent Interaction Without Prior Coordination; Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling; Semantic Cities — Beyond Open Data to Models, Standards, and Reasoning; Sequential Decision Making with Big Data; Statistical Relational AI; and the World Wide Web and Public Health Intelligence. This article presents short summaries of those events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1870.110

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 head0.200
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAI MagazineSame topicData Quality and ManagementFrench-language works237,207