MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017267761 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2011100103

Cognitive Dynamic Systems

2011· article· en· W2017267761 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTarget Tracking and Data Fusion in Sensor Networks
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitionCognitive scienceCognitive roboticsScope (computer science)Cognitive modelLIDAPerceptionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligenceEmbodied cognitionPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main topics covered in this paper address the following four issues: 1) Distinction between how adaptation and cognition are viewed with respect to each other, 2) With human cognition viewed as the framework for cognition, the following cognitive processes are identified: the perception-action cycle, memory, attention, intelligence, and language. With language being outside the scope of the paper, detailed accounts of the other four cognitive processes are discussed, 3) Cognitive radar is singled out as an example application of cognitive dynamic systems that “mimics” the visual brain; experimental results on tracking are presented using simulations, which clearly demonstrate the information-processing power of cognition, and 4) Two other example applications of cognitive dynamic systems, namely, cognitive radio and cognitive control, are briefly described.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.262 · 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