MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W174748860

Foundations of Similarity and Utility.

2007· article· en· W174748860 on OpenAlexaff
Michael M. Richter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Florida AI Research Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimilarity (geometry)Computer scienceFoundation (evidence)Artificial intelligenceExpected utility hypothesisTheoretical computer scienceMachine learningMathematical economicsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we discuss a rigorous foundation of similarity reasoning based on the concept of utility. If utility is formulated in mathematical terms it can serve as a formal specification for a similarity system. However, utility can also be formulated in informal ways. We consider subjective versions, competing ones and those that change dynamically over time. These are illustrated by examples from risk analysis, speech recognition, and urban planning. From the examples we derive a number of challenges.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.014
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Florida AI Research SocietySame topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207