MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039001632 · doi:10.1111/0824-7935.00156

Applications of Rough Genetic Algorithms

2001· article· en· W2039001632 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

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRough setGenetic algorithmGeneralizationInterval (graph theory)AlgorithmComputer scienceQuality control and genetic algorithmsArtificial intelligenceData miningMathematicsMachine learningMeta-optimizationCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes rough genetic algorithms based on the notion of interval values. A gene in a rough genetic algorithm can be represented using an interval. The paper explains how this generalization facilitates development of new genetic operators and evaluation measures. Various operations of rough genetic algorithms are illustrated using a simple document retrieval example. An experiment involving classification of interval‐valued traffic patterns demonstrates the usefulness of rough genetic algorithms for real‐world applications. A discussion on further extensions of rough genetic algorithms to rough sets is also included.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.613
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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