Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper details and deepens a previous work where the Interpreted Systems semantics was proposed as a general framework for situation analysis (SA). This framework is particularly efficient for representing and reasoning about knowledge and uncertainty when performing situation analysis tasks. Our approach of SA is to base our analysis on the production of state transition systems consisting in the set of all temporal trajectories possibly obtained upon the execution of a given set of agents' protocols. Thus seen, the SA task involves the definition of more or less subtle reasoning about graph structures. A formal situation analysis model is defined as an interpreted algorithmic belief change system. In such a model, the notions of situation, situation awareness and situation analysis are provided. The analysis of the situation is done through the verification of implicit notions of knowledge with temporal properties. Implicit knowledge is distinguished from explicit knowledge and situation awareness is defined in terms of the computing power of resource-bounded agents. A general plausibility measure allows us to model belief while making the link with quantitative representations of uncertainty such as probabilities, belief functions and possibilities. The propsed modelisation of the Situation Analysis process, while compatible with the traditionnal implicit representation of knowledge found in modal logic, allows us to link the decision processes of the agents, their awareness of the situation with the observations they make about the environment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".