MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1605547301 · doi:10.2307/25148874

Using Cognitive Principles to Guide Classification in Information Systems Modeling1

2008· article· en· W1605547301 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

VenueMIS Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformation systemCognitionComputer scienceManagement scienceData scienceKnowledge managementSystems engineeringEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organizing phenomena into classes is a pervasive human activity. The ability to classify phenomena encountered in daily life in useful ways is essential to human survival and adaptation. Not surprisingly, then, classification-oriented activities are widespread in the information systems field. Classes or entity types play a central role in conceptual modeling for information systems requirements analysis, as well as in the design of databases and object-oriented software. Furthermore, classification is the primary task in applications such as data mining and the development of domain ontologies to support information sharing in semantic web applications. However, despite the pervasiveness of classification, little research has proposed well-grounded when modeling a domain or designing information systems artifacts. In this paper, we adopt the cognitive notions of inference and economy to derive a set of principles to guide effective and efficient classification. We present a model for characterizing what may be considered useful classes in a given context based on the inferences that can be drawn from membership in a class. This foundation is then used to suggest practical design rules for evaluating and refining potential classes. We illustrate the use of the rules by showing that applying them to a previously published example yields meaningful changes. We then present an evaluation by a panel of experts who compared the published and revised models. The evaluation shows that following the rules leads to semantically clearer models that are preferred by experts. The paper concludes by outlining possible future research directions.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.180 · 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