MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058757475 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2007040103

Is Entropy Suitable to Characterize Data and Signals for Cognitive Informatics?

2007· article· en· W2058757475 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 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEntropy (arrow of time)Information theoryMultifractal systemArtificial intelligenceJoint entropyFractalData miningTheoretical computer scienceStatistical physicsMathematicsPrinciple of maximum entropyStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a review of Shannon and other entropy measures in evaluating the quality of materials used in perception, cognition, and learning processes. Energy-based metrics are not suitable for cognition, as energy itself does not carry information. Instead, morphological (structural and contextual) metrics as well as entropy-based multi-scale metrics should be considered in cognitive informatics. Appropriate data and signal transformation processes are defined and discussed in the perceptual framework followed by various classes of information and entropies suitable for characterization of data, signals, and distortion. Other entropies are also described including the Rényi generalized entropy spectrum, Kolmogorov complexity measure, Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy, and Prigogine entropy for evolutionary dynamical systems. Although such entropy-based measures are suitable for many signals, they are not sufficient for scale-invariant (fractal and multifractal) signals without corresponding complementary multi-scale measures.

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)0.001
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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.301 · 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