MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973213711 · doi:10.4018/jssci.2012100105

Formal Rules for Fuzzy Causal Analyses and Fuzzy Inferences

2012· article· en· W1973213711 on OpenAlexaff
Yingxu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational Intelligence · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFuzzy cognitive mapArtificial intelligenceComputational intelligenceFuzzy logicDeductive reasoningSemantics (computer science)InferenceFuzzy setFuzzy set operationsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Causal inference is one of the central capabilities of the natural intelligence that plays a crucial role in thinking, perception, and problem solving. Fuzzy inferences are an extended form of formal inferences that provide a denotational mathematical means for rigorously dealing with degrees of matters, uncertainties, and vague semantics of linguistic variables, as well as for rational reasoning the semantics of fuzzy causalities. This paper presents a set of formal rules for causal analyses and fuzzy inferences such as those of deductive, inductive, abductive, and analogical inferences. Rules and methodologies for each of the fuzzy inferences are formally modeled and illustrated with real-world examples and cases of applications. The formalization of fuzzy inference methodologies enables machines to mimic complex human reasoning mechanisms in cognitive informatics, cognitive computing, soft computing, abstract intelligence, and computational intelligence.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational IntelligenceSame topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207