Measuring Resemblances Between Swarm Behaviours: A Perceptual Tolerance Near Set Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem considered in this article is how to detect and measure resemblances between swarm behaviours. The solution to this problem stems from an extension of recent work on tolerance near sets and image correspondence. Instead of considering feature extraction from subimages in digital images, we compare swarm behaviours by considering feature extraction from subsets of tuples of feature-values representing the behaviour of observed swarms of organisms. Thanks to recent work on the foundations of near sets, it is possible to formulate a rigorous approach to measuring the extent that swarm behaviours resemble each other. Fundamental to this approach is what is known as a recent description-based set intersection, a set containing objects with matching or almost the same descriptions extracted from objects contained in pairs of disjoint sets. Implicit in this work is a new approach to comparing information tables representing N. Tinbergen's ethology (study of animal behaviour) and direct result of recent work on what is known as rough ethology. Included in this article is a comparison of recent nearness measures that includes a new form of F. Hausdorff's distance measure. The contribution of this article is a tolerance near set approach to measuring the degree of resemblance between swarm behaviours.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".