Fuzzy cognitive map reconstruction - dynamics vs. History
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 study is concerned with a fundamental issue of time series representation for modeling and prediction with Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. We introduce two distinct time series representation schemes for Fuzzy Cognitive Map design. First method is based on time series amplitude, amplitude change, and change of amplitude change (dynamics perspective). Second scheme is based on three consecutive historical observations: present value, past value and before past value (history perspective). Introduced procedures are experimentally verified and compared on several synthetic and real-world time series of various characteristics. The history-oriented time series representation turned out to be more advantageous. Quality of FCM-based time series models and one-step-ahead predictions were measured in terms of Mean Squared Error. We have shown that models designed with history-oriented time series representation generally require less FCM nodes to be of comparable quality as models built on dynamics-oriented time series representation. As a result, with the history-oriented time series representation scheme we are able to construct simpler and therefore better models.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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