MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096786223 · doi:10.1109/nafips.2004.1337433

On the direct scaling approach of eliciting aggregated fuzzy information: the psychophysical view

2004· article· en· W2096786223 on OpenAlexaff
Günther Gediga, Ivo Düntsch, J. Adams-Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Text Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalingFuzzy logicOperator (biology)Simple (philosophy)Computer scienceFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an experiment in which we elicit aggregated fuzzy information, and link it to the "direct scaling" approach of S.S. Stevens (1957). We also re-analyze earlier experiments [H.-J. Zimmermann and P. Zysno, 1980] and compare the results to the proposed scaling method. Our results seem to indicate that a compensatory operator is not always necessary to model aggregated fuzzy information, and that humans internally use a simple rescaling.

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 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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Annual Meeting of the Fuzzy Information, 2004. Processing NAFIPS '04.Same topicAdvanced Text Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207