Raisonnement à base de cas textuels Etat de l'art et perspectives
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME. Traditionnelle ment le raisonnement a base de cas (CBR) s’appuie sur des experiences decrites dans des formats completement structures tels que des objets ou des enregistrements de base de donnees. Toutefois d’autres modeles ont ete proposes pour surmonter les limitations de cette approche structurelle et rendre possible l’application a des domaines plus varies. Dans cet article, nous passons en revue les extensions du formalisme CBR proposees pour traiter des experiences decrites dans des documents textuels, travaux regroupes sous la banniere CBR textuel. Apres une presentation succincte des principes generaux du raisonnement a base de cas, nous decrivons les principaux travaux du CBR textuel et nous les comparons selon differents aspects techniques et applicatifs. Finalement, nous proposons quelques problemes et avenues de recherche meritant d’etre explores dans des travaux futurs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it