MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998787753 · doi:10.1142/s0218213003001216

Logic Grammars for Diagnosis and Repair

2003· article· en· W1998787753 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNatural Language Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceParsingRule-based machine translationString (physics)Transformation (genetics)Natural language processingConstraint (computer-aided design)Artificial intelligenceGrammarProgramming languageParsing expression grammarFeature (linguistics)Context-free grammarL-attributed grammarDefinite clause grammarGrammar inductionTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an abductive model based on Constraint Handling Rule Grammars (CHRGs) for detecting and correcting errors in problem domains that can be described in terms of strings of words accepted by a logic grammar. We provide a proof of concept for the specific problem of detecting and repairing natural language errors, in particular, those concerning feature agreement. Our methodology relies on grammar and string transformation in accordance with a user-defined dictionary of possible repairs. This transformation also serves as top-down guidance for our essentially bottom-up parser. With respect to previous approaches to error detection and repair, including those that also use constraints and/or abduction, our methodology is surprisingly simple while far-reaching and efficient.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.282 · 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