MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096060214 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2009.2013334

Interpreting Concept Learning in Cognitive Informatics and Granular Computing

2009· article· en· W2096060214 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInformaticsComputer scienceCognitionCognitive scienceCognitive computingGranular computingPsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive informatics and granular computing are two emerging fields of study concerning information and knowledge processing. A central notion to this processing is information and knowledge granularity. Concepts, as the basic units of thought underlying human intelligence and communication, may play a fundamental role when integrating the results from the two fields in terms of information and knowledge coding, representation, communication, and processing. While cognitive informatics focuses on information processing in the abstract, in machines, and in the brain, granular computing models such processing at multiple levels of granularity. In this paper, we examine a conceptual framework for concept learning from the viewpoints of cognitive informatics and granular computing. Within the framework, we interpret concept learning based on a layered model of knowledge discovery.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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