MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1865476398

Towards unbiased evaluation of uncertainty reasoning: The URREF ontology

2012· article· en· W1865476398 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 Conference on Information Fusion · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntologyComputer scienceSituation awarenessSensor fusionRepresentation (politics)Situation analysisKnowledge representation and reasoningData miningOntology-based data integrationData collectionInformation retrievalData scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringSemantic Web
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current advances in technology, sensor collection, data storage, and data distribution have afforded more complex, distributed, and operational information fusion systems (IFSs). IFSs notionally consist of low-level (data collection, registration, and association in time and space) and high-level information fusion (user coordination, situational awareness, and mission control), which require a common ontology for effective communication and data processing. In this paper, we describe the ontology reference model developed as part of the uncertainty representation and reasoning evaluation framework (URREF). The URREF ontology is intended to provide guidance for defining the actual concepts and criteria that together comprise the comprehensive uncertainty evaluation framework being developed by the Evaluation of Technologies for Uncertainty Representation Working Group (ETURWG).

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.255 · 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