MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971578845 · doi:10.1109/re.2012.6345832

Tool support for combined rule-based and goal-based reasoning in Context-Aware systems

2012· article· en· W1971578845 on OpenAlexaff
Mira Vrbaski, Dorina C. Petriu, Daniel Amyot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Rule-based systemProcess (computing)Semantic reasonerContext modelQualitative reasoningNotationReasoning systemHuman–computer interactionRank (graph theory)Artificial intelligenceSoftware engineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context-aware systems often use rule-based reasoning engines for decision making without involving explicit interaction with the user. While rule-based systems excel in filtering out unsuitable solutions based on clear criteria, it is difficult to rank suitable solutions based on vague, qualitative criteria with a rule-based approach. Moreover, the description of such systems is typically ad-hoc without well-defined modeling tasks. CARGO (Context-Aware Reasoning using Goal-Orientation) aims to address these problems by combining rule-based and goal-based reasoning as well as scenario-based modeling to provide a more comprehensive way to define context-aware systems and to process contextual information. This demo presents CARGO, a modeling, simulation, and execution environment for context-aware systems built on existing tool support for the User Requirements Notation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207