MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W191149166

Validating and Representing Case Based Knowledge

2009· article· en· W191149166 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Gauthier, Susanne P. Lajoie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Key (lock)Visual reasoningModel-based reasoningCase-based reasoningData scienceArtificial intelligenceManagement scienceKnowledge managementKnowledge representation and reasoningEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our data on case creation demonstrated both validity and reliability issues concerning the generation of solutions to easy cases. We propose a methodology that addresses the challenge of capturing and representing evolving knowledge into a validation activity.. The primary emphasis of this activity is not on finding a reliable answer but on identifying and representing optimal reasoning processes leading to acceptable answers for each case. The study examines five medical experts' reasoning processes while they solve and teach three specific cases. Visual representations of their discourse and reasoning processes are co-constructed and consolidated. Findings indicate that variability can be explained by structuring cases around key processes.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207