Evidential reasoning using extended fuzzy Dempster-Shafer theory for handling various facets of information deficiency
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 work investigates the problem of combining deficient evidence for the purpose of quality assessment. The main focus of the work is modeling vagueness, ambiguity, and local nonspecificity in information within a unified approach. We introduce an extended fuzzy Dempster–Shafer scheme based on the simultaneous use of fuzzy interval-grade and interval-valued belief degree (IGIB). The latter facilitates modeling of uncertainties in terms of local ignorance associated with expert knowledge, whereas the former allows for handling the lack of information on belief degree assignments. Also, generalized fuzzy sets can be readily transformed into the proposed fuzzy IGIB structure. The reasoning for quality assessment is performed by solving nonlinear optimization problems on fuzzy Dempster–Shafer paradigm for the fuzzy IGIB structure. The application of the proposed inference method is investigated by designing a reasoning scheme for water quality monitoring and validated through the experimental data available for different sampling points in a water distribution network. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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