MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988567896 · doi:10.3166/ria.19.479-498

Context: Representation and Reasoning. Representing and Reasoning about Context in a Mobile Environment

2005· article· en· W1988567896 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicContext-Aware Activity Recognition Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Computer scienceModel-based reasoningAnalytic reasoningQualitative reasoningVerbal reasoningOpportunistic reasoningCognitive scienceKnowledge representation and reasoningReasoning systemPsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitionGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today the computer is changing from a big, grey, and noisy thing on our desk to a small, portable, and ever-networked item most of us are carrying around. This new found mobility imposes a shift in how we view computers and the way we work with them. When interaction can occur anywhere at any time it is imperative that the system adapts to the user in whatever situation the user is in. To facilitate this adaptivity we propose a two tier architecture. A middleware layer implementing a general mechanism for aggregating and maintaining contextual information. The second part offers automatic situation assessment through Case-Based Reasoning. We demonstrate a multi-agent system for supplying context-sensitive services in a mobile environment.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.278
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