MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040512820 · doi:10.4018/jssci.2009010105

On the System Algebra Foundations for Granular Computing

2009· article· en· W2040512820 on OpenAlexaff
Yingxu Wang, Lotfi A. Zadeh, Yiyu Yao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational Intelligence · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranular computingComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgebra over a fieldSet (abstract data type)Representation (politics)Rough setArtificial intelligenceMathematicsProgramming languagePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Granular computing studies a novel approach to computing system modeling and information processing. Although a rich set of work has advanced the understanding of granular computing in dealing with the “to be” and “to have” problems of systems, the “to do” aspect of system modeling and behavioral implementation has been relatively overlooked. On the basis of a recent development in denotational mathematics known as system algebra, this paper presents a system metaphor of granules and explores the theoretical and mathematical foundations of granular computing. An abstract system model of granules is proposed in this paper. Rigorous manipulations of granular systems in computing are modeled by system algebra. The properties of granular systems are analyzed, which helps to explain the magnitudes and complexities of granular systems. Formal representation of granular systems for computing is demonstrated by real-world case studies, where concrete granules and their algebraic operations are explained.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
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

Citations92
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Software Science and Computational IntelligenceSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207