MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969401242 · doi:10.1002/cjas.24

Knowledge engineering for modelling reasoning in a diagnosis task: application to search and rescue

2007· article· en· W1969401242 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Stéphane Schvartz, Irène Abi‐Zeid, Nicole Tourigny

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTask (project management)Domain (mathematical analysis)Computer scienceDomain knowledgeProcess (computing)Model-based reasoningKnowledge engineeringSearch and rescueArtificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringKnowledge representation and reasoningEngineeringSystems engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper pertains to the application of knowledge engineering methods to aeronautical search and rescue in Canada. We modelled at the knowledge level the reasoning process of a search mission coordinator when conducting a diagnosis task to determine the routes likely followed by an aircraft missing overland. Knowledge engineering allowed us to develop a reasoning model based on documents and on interviews with domain experts. Our study was conducted in the CommonKADS knowledge modelling framework. The proposed model was validated by domain experts and implemented in a rule‐based prototype. Copyright © 2007 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l AdministrationSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207