FORMAL ASPECTS OF A MULTIPLE-RULE CLASSIFIER
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
This paper deals with the multiple-rule problem which arises when several decision rules (of different classes) match ("fire" for) an input to-be-classified (unseen) object. The paper focuses on formal aspects and theoretical methodology for the above problem. The general definitions of the notions of a Designer, Learner and Classifier are presented in a formal matter, including parameters that are usually attached to the above concepts such as rule consistency, completeness, quality, matching rate, etc. We thus provide the minimum-requirement definitions as necessary conditions for these concepts. Any designer (decision-system builder) of a new multiple-rule system may start with these minimum requirements. We only expect that the Classifier makes its decisions according to its decision scheme induced as a knowledge base (theory, model, concept description). Also, two case studies are discussed. We conclude with a general flow chart for a decision-system builder. He/she can just pursue it and select parameters of a Learner and Classifier, following the minimum requirements provided.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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