MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910591194 · doi:10.1109/fuzzy.1997.619736

Elicitation of membership functions: how far can theory take us?

2002· article· en· W1910591194 on OpenAlexaff
İ.B. Türkşen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of 6th International Fuzzy Systems Conference · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceManagement scienceCognitive sciencePsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A taxonomy of interpretations for fuzzy membership functions is given. Depending on each interpretation, the elicitation method and the theory to apply seems to be different. When different interpretations are cast into a measurement theoretic framework the difference becomes clearer. However, this raises questions about the validity of the overall measurement-theoretic framework. It is argued that the measurement-theoretic framework imposes an objective account of meaning for fuzzy set theory and implications of this on the practical elicitation of membership functions are commented on.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.030
Scholarly communication0.0220.049
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations26
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of 6th International Fuzzy Systems ConferenceSame topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207