MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046052255 · doi:10.1080/19462166.2014.1001790

Context-aware reconfiguration of large-scale surveillance systems: argumentative approach

2015· article· en· W2046052255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Novák, Cees Witteveen

Bibliographic record

VenueArgument & Computation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl reconfigurationArgumentativeContext (archaeology)Computer scienceScale (ratio)Political scienceEmbedded systemGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Metis research project aims at supporting maritime safety and security by facilitating continuous monitoring of vessels in national coastal waters and prevention of phenomena, such as vessel collisions, environmental hazard, or detection of malicious intents, such as smuggling.Surveillance systems such as Metis typically comprise a number of heterogeneous information sources and information aggregators.Among the main problems of their deployment lies their scalability with respect to a potentially large number of monitored entities.One of the solutions to the problem is continuous and timely adaptation and reconfiguration of the system according to the changing environment it operates in.At any given timepoint, the system should use only a minimal set of information sources and aggregators needed to facilitate effective and early detection of indicators of interest.Here, we describe the Metis system prototype and introduce a theoretical framework for modelling scalable information-aggregation systems.We model information-aggregation systems as networks of inter-dependent reasoning agents, each representing a mechanism for justification/refutation of a conclusion derived by the agent.The proposed continuous reconfiguration algorithm relies on standard results from abstract argumentation and corresponds to computation of a grounded extension of the argumentation framework associated with the system.Finally, we demonstrate the flexibility of the presented framework by extending the proposed algorithm to adapt to context-dependent changes in information sources availability, as well as shifts in system's focus according to its context.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArgument & ComputationSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207