MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971967548 · doi:10.1109/syscon.2012.6189539

Overview of Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm and its applications

2012· article· en· W1971967548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial bee colony algorithmComputer scienceMetaheuristicHeuristicMathematical optimizationAlgorithmKey (lock)Optimization algorithmPopulationMeta heuristicArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-world optimization problems are very difficult and have high degrees of uncertainty. Conventional optimization algorithms have some limitations (i.e., local solution attainment and/or divergence) in solving such problems. On the other hand, meta-heuristic algorithms prove to be competent in outperforming deterministic algorithms, especially when the complexity of the problem increases. Practitioners have utilized those unconventional algorithms for the past few decades. This paper presents an overview of the literature employing the Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm in their solution approach. The ABC algorithm is a recently introduced population-based meta-heuristic optimization technique inspired by the intelligent foraging behavior of honeybee swarms. Key features of the ABC algorithm, as well as its performance characteristics, are also discussed.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.271 · 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