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

On Abstract Intelligence and Brain Informatics

2012· article· en· W173029889 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

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
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