MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985134489 · doi:10.1117/12.669579

Combination rules of evidence for situation assessment and target identification

2006· article· en· W1985134489 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

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed Sensor Networks and Detection Algorithms
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Rule-based systemDempster–Shafer theoryMathematicsArtificial intelligenceDecision ruleFuzzy ruleExpert systemData miningComputer scienceMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)Fuzzy setFuzzy logic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the combination rules, such as the Dempster-Shafer's (D-S) combination rule, the Yager's combination rule, the Dubois and Prade's (D-P) combination rule, the DSm's combination rule and the disjunctive combination rule, are applied to the situation assessment and target identification problems. Given two independent sources of information with different resolutions, the results from each combination rule of evidence are analyzed. It is observed from these results that the DSm's rule is the fastest in arriving at a decision compared to the other three rules, while the disjunctive combination rule is the slowest. The Yager's rule yields the same identification results for the situation assessment as the Dubois and Prade's rule. Moreover, the decision-making of the D-S' rule is faster than that of the Yager's as well as of the Dubois and Prade's rules, however, slower than that of the DSm's rule

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.573

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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