MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W173029889 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2012100103

On Abstract Intelligence and Brain Informatics

2012· article· en· W173029889 on OpenAlexaff
Yingxu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEmbodied cognitionCognitionCognitive scienceCognitive computingArtificial general intelligenceSet (abstract data type)Cognitive roboticsInformaticsCognitive modelArtificial intelligencePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A key notion in abstract intelligence and cognitive informatics is that the brain and natural intelligence may only be explained by a hierarchical and reductive theory that maps the brain through the embodied neurological, physiological, cognitive, and logical levels from bottom-up induction and top-down deduction. This paper presents an abstract intelligence framework for modeling the structures and functions of the brain across these four levels. A set of abstract intelligent model, cognitive functional model, and neurophysiological model of the brain is systematically developed. On the basis of the abstract intelligent models of the brain at different levels, the conventionally highly overlapped, redundant, and even contradicted empirical observations in brain studies and cognitive psychology may be rigorously clarified and neatly explained. The improved understanding about the brain has led to the development of a wide range of novel technologies and systems such as cognitive computers, cognitive robots, and other applied cognitive systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207