MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978229367 · doi:10.1142/s0218213011000528

RULE RESPONDER: RULE-BASED AGENTS FOR THE SEMANTIC-PRAGMATIC WEB

2011· article· en· W1978229367 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Paschke, Harold Boley

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSemantic WebSemantic Web Rule LanguageSocial Semantic WebContext (archaeology)Complex event processingRule-based systemMulti-agent systemEvent (particle physics)Semantic analyticsKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rule Responder is a Pragmatic Web infrastructure for distributed rule-based event processing multi-agent eco-systems. This allows specifying virtual organizations — with their shared and individual (semantic and pragmatic) contexts, decisions, and actions/events for rule-based collaboration between the distributed members. The (semi-)autonomous agents use rule engines and Semantic Web rules to describe and execute derivation and reaction logic which declaratively implements the organizational semiotics and the different distributed system/agent topologies with their negotiation/coordination mechanisms. They employ ontologies in their knowledge bases to represent semantic domain vocabularies, normative pragmatics and pragmatic context of event-based conversations and actions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.013

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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence ToolsSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207