MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001683325 · doi:10.1109/icif.2007.4408150

A generalized framework for concordance/discordance-based multi-criteria classification methods

2007· article· en· W2001683325 on OpenAlexaff
Khaled Jabeur, Adel Guitouni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordancePropositionClassifier (UML)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMetric (unit)Data miningMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews multiple criteria classification methods (or multi-criteria classifiers), particularly those based on Concordance/Discordance concepts. The concordance refers to an aggregated metric indicating the truthfulness of a proposition according to a coalition of criteria. The discordance is an aggregated metric representing the strength of the opposition coalition to the truthfulness of the proposition. A generalized framework is proposed to synthesise the underlying computation algorithms for each classifier. In this paper, we argue the benefits of cross-fertilization of multiple criteria classification methods and information fusion algorithms.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.598

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207