Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shows that signal quantization can be conveniently captured and quantified in the language of information granules. Optimal codebooks exploited in any signal quantization (discretization) lend themselves to the underlying fundamental issues of information granulation. The paper elaborates on and contrasts between various forms of information granulation such as set theory, shadowed sets, and fuzzy sets. It is revealed that a set‐based codebook can be easily enhanced by the use of the shadowed sets. This also raises awareness about the performance of the quantization process and helps increase its quality by defining additional elements of the codebook and specifying their range of applicability. We show how different information granules contribute to the performance of signal quantification. The role of clustering techniques giving rise to information granules is also analyzed. Some pertinent theoretical results are derived. It is shown that fuzzy sets defined in terms of piecewise linear membership functions with 1/2 overlap between any two adjacent terms of the codebook give rise to the effect of lossless quantization. The study addresses both scalar and multivariable quantization. Numerical studies are included to help illustrate the quantization mechanisms carried out in the setting of granular computing.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".