MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552477862 · doi:10.1109/icsmc.1988.754267

An approximate reasoning approach for the implementation of an expert system in aggregate production planning

2005· article· en· W1552477862 on OpenAlexaff
İ.B. Türkşen, Zhao Zhong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpert systemSchema (genetic algorithms)Computer scienceAggregate planningLegal expert systemRule of inferenceArtificial intelligenceInferenceFuzzy setInference engineFuzzy logicData miningMachine learningProduction planningProduction (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Approximate Reasoning Schema (ARS) is proposed which exhibits the advantage of Fuzzy Sets Theory in Expert Systems' Pattern Matching phase. This schema avoids going through the conceptually complicated Compositional Rule of Inference, which has been employed in the implementation of almost every expert system with approximate reasoning capability. The schema is further extended to Interval-Valued Fuzzy Set's where additional uncertainty can be handled in a formal model. Finally, our ARS is implemented by using Texas Instruments PC/sup +/ Expert System Shell. The Expert System ARS is applied to an Aggregate Production Planning prototype study, where intuitive decision makings seem to be common practice. The system's performance is compared with other approaches and the result, is encouraging.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMulti-Criteria Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207