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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anders Kofod‐Petersen, Marius Mikalsen

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.016
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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

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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicContext-Aware Activity Recognition SystemsFrench-language works237,207