MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075848916 · doi:10.4236/jsea.2013.67045

Modeling Rules Fission and Modality Selection Using Ontology

2013· article· en· W2075848916 on OpenAlexafffund
Atef Zaguia, Ahmad Wahbi, Moeiz Miraoui, Chakib Tadj, Amar Ramdane-Chérif

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Software Engineering and Applications · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpeech and dialogue systems
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceOntologyModality (human–computer interaction)ModalitiesVocabularySoftware engineeringArchitectureHuman–computer interactionSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers in computer science and computer engineering devote a significant part of their efforts on communication and interaction between man and machine. Indeed, with the advent of multimedia and multimodal processing in real time, the computer is no longer considered only as a computational tool, but as a machine for processing, communication, collection and control. Many machines assist and support many activities in daily life. The main objective of this paper is to propose a new methodological solution by modeling an architecture that facilitates the work of multimodal system especially for a fission module. To realize such systems, we rely on ontology to integrate data semantically. Ontologies provide a structured vocabulary usedas support for data representation. This paper provides a better understanding of the fission system and multimodal interaction. We present our architecture and the description of the detection of optimal modalities. This is done by using an ontological model that contains different applicable scenarios and describes the environment where a multimodal system exists.

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)0.005
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Software Engineering and ApplicationsSame topicSpeech and dialogue systemsFrench-language works237,207