MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064825291 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2010070104

The Cognitive Process of Comprehension

2010· article· en· W2064825291 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 · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionComputer scienceCognitionProcess (computing)Cognitive computingCognitive scienceCognitive modelObject (grammar)Knowledge representation and reasoningRepresentation (politics)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingProgramming languagePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comprehension is an ability to understand the meaning of a concept or an action. Comprehension is an important intelligent power of abstract thought and reasoning of humans or intelligent systems. It is highly curious to explore the internal process of comprehension in the brain and to explain its basic mechanisms in cognitive informatics and computational intelligence. This paper presents a formal model of the cognitive process of comprehension. The mechanism and process of comprehension are systematically explained with its conceptual, mathematical, and process models based on the Layered Reference Model of the Brain (LRMB) and the Object-Attribute-Relation (OAR) model for internal knowledge representation. Contemporary denotational mathematics such as concept algebra and Real-Time Process Algebra (RTPA) are adopted in order to formally describe the comprehension process and its interaction with other cognitive processes of the brain.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.294 · 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