MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538134818 · doi:10.13140/2.1.1779.4243

Neural-Symbolic Learning and Reasoning: Contributions and Challenges

2015· article· en· W1538134818 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

VenueCity Research Online (City University London) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConnectionismComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkRepresentation (politics)ComputationKnowledge representation and reasoningSymbolic-numeric computationKey (lock)Models of neural computationThe SymbolicCognitive scienceMachine learningProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of neural-symbolic computation is to integrate ro-bust connectionist learning and sound symbolic reasoning. With the recent advances in connectionist learning, in par-ticular deep neural networks, forms of representation learn-ing have emerged. However, such representations have not become useful for reasoning. Results from neural-symbolic computation have shown to offer powerful alternatives for knowledge representation, learning and reasoning in neural computation. This paper recalls the main contributions and discusses key challenges for neural-symbolic integration which have been identified at a recent Dagstuhl seminar. 1.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.260 · 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