MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079838695 · doi:10.1002/int.20072

An approach to measure the robustness of fuzzy reasoning

2005· article· en· W2079838695 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 Intelligent Systems · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMulti-Criteria Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRobustness (evolution)Fuzzy logicComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceFuzzy control systemMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fuzzy reasoning is intensively used in intelligent systems including fuzzy control, classification, expert systems, and networks to name a few dominant categories of such architectures. As being a fundamental construct permeating so many diverse areas, fuzzy reasoning was studied with respect to its fundamental properties such as robustness. The notion of robustness or sensitivity becomes of paramount importance by leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the way in which reasoning processes are developed. In this study, we introduce and study properties of some measures of robustness (or sensitivity) of fuzzy connectives and implication operators and discuss their relationships with perturbation properties of fuzzy sets. The results produced here are compared and contrasted with the previous findings available in the literature. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Int J Int Syst 20: 393–413, 2005.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.246 · 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