MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977122250 · doi:10.5539/cis.v3n1p152

A Knowledge Innovation Algorithm Based on Granularity

2010· article· en· W1977122250 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yan Tai-shan

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer and Information Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGranularityComputer scienceKnowledge baseConsistency (knowledge bases)sortGranular computingKnowledge spacePartition (number theory)Rough setAlgorithmData miningTheoretical computer scienceMeasure (data warehouse)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsKnowledge managementInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The structure of Human knowledge is regarded as granule state by rough sets theory. Granularity is used to denote this structure of knowledge. Knowledge itself evolves ceaselessly as creatures. Knowledge innovation is an important step of knowledge evolution course. Based on knowledge granularity, a knowledge innovation method was proposed in this paper. The main idea of this method is to constitute the partition granularity of knowledge base space ceaselessly depend on the measure consistency of attribute, till the sort of every granules in the granularity is only one. There is only one computation namely the measure consistency of attribute in the algorithm, so the numerical calculation work is little, the time complexity is low, and the algorithm is feasible absolutely. Experiments were taken on the imperfect knowledge base space of day weather classification by this algorithm, its working course was explained. The successful results show that this algorithm is correct and valid.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputer and Information ScienceSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207