A Sociopsychological Perspective on Collective Intelligence in Metaheuristic Computing
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In studies of genetic algorithms, evolutionary computing, and ant colony mechanisms, it is recognized that the higher-order forms of collective intelligence play an important role in metaheuristic computing and computational intelligence. Collective intelligence is an integration of collective behaviors of individuals in social groups or collective functions of components in computational intelligent systems. This paper presents the properties of collective intelligence and their applications in metaheuristic computing. A social psychological perspective on collected intelligence is elaborated toward the studies on the structure, organization, operation, and development of collective intelligence. The collective behaviors underpinning collective intelligence in groups and societies are analyzed via the fundamental phenomenon of the basic human needs. A key question on how collective intelligence is constrained by social environment and group settings is explained by a formal motivation/attitude-driven behavioral model. Then, a metaheuristic computational model for a generic cognitive process of human problem solving is developed. This work helps to explain the cognitive and collective intelligent foundations of metaheuristic computing and its engineering applications.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it