MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005305392 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2008100103

Foundations of Nonconventional Neural Units and their Classification

2008· article· en· W2005305392 on OpenAlexaff
Ivo Bukovský, Zeng‐Guang Hou, Jiří Bíla, Madan M. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceNonlinear systemNotationRepresentation (politics)Artificial intelligenceFunction (biology)AlgorithmMathematicsArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces basic types of nonconventional neural units and focuses on their notation and classification. Namely, the notation and classification of higher order nonlinear neural units, time-delay dynamic neural units, and time-delay higher order nonlinear neural units are introduced. Brief introduction into the simplified parallels of the higher order nonlinear aggregating function of higher order neural units with both the synaptic and somatic neural operation of biological neurons is made. Based on the mathematical notation of neural input intercorrelations of higher order neural units, it is shown that the higher order polynomial aggregating function of neural inputs can be understood as a single-equation representation of synaptic neural operation plus partial somatic neural operation. Thus, it unravels new simplified yet universal mathematical insight into understanding the higher computational power of neurons that also conforms to biological neuronal morphology. The classification of nonconventional neural units is founded first according to the nonlinearity of the aggregating function; second, according to the dynamic order; and third, according to time-delay implementation within neural units.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207