MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013640034 · doi:10.3166/ria.19.519-535

Context-based Retrieval for Explainable Reasoning

2005· article· fr· W2013640034 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Stefan Schulz, Thomas Roth–Berghofer

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAccess Control and Trust
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Information retrievalArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the background of mobile, ubiquitous, and pervasive applications, context determination and assignment is a necessary factor to provide IT solutions suited to a user and the user's current situation. In this paper, context is seen as n-ary relationship. Context gets embedded into ontologies, which are used to structure application specific knowledge. We present an integrative, case-based modelling approach for context and context management. We discuss the incorporation of context-based reasoning and explanation. And finally, we show how to apply our approach for trust management.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.012
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicAccess Control and TrustFrench-language works237,207