MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081431990 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2007100101

On the Cognitive Processes of Human Perception with Emotions, Motivations, and Attitudes

2007· article· en· W2081431990 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 Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePerceptionCognitionProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Object (grammar)Cognitive modelInformaticsRelation (database)Cognitive scienceHuman–computer interactionEmbodied cognitionCognitive psychologyArtificial intelligencePsychologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interactive motivation-attitude theory is developed based on the Layered Reference Model of the Brain (LRMB) and the object-attribute-relation (OAR) model. This paper presents a rigorous model of human perceptual processes such as emotions, motivations, and attitudes. A set of mathematical models and formal cognitive processes of perception is developed. Interactions and relationships between motivation and attitude are formally described in real-time process algebra (RTPA). Applications of the mathematical models of motivations and attitudes in software engineering are demonstrated. This work is a part of the formalization of LRMB, which provides a comprehensive model for explaining the fundamental cognitive processes of the brain and their interactions. This work demonstrates that the complicated human emotional and perceptual phenomena can be rigorously modeled and formally treated based on cognitive informatics theories and denotational mathematics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.289 · 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