MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100283156 · doi:10.1109/icnn.1996.549082

Modular neural network architectures for classification

2002· article· en· W2100283156 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

VenueProceedings of International Conference on Neural Networks (ICNN'96) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModular designComputer scienceArtificial neural networkDivide and conquer algorithmsModular neural networkArtificial intelligenceClassifier (UML)Machine learningTask (project management)Time delay neural networkDecompositionEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the major drawbacks of the current neural network generation is the inability to cope with the increase of size/complexity of classification tasks. Modular neural network classifiers attempt to solve this problem through a "divide and conquer" approach. However. The performance of the modular neural network classifiers is sensitive to efficiency of the "task decomposition" technique and the "multi-module decision-making" strategy. After a brief review of previous work with emphasis on five published modular classifiers-decoupled nets, ART-BP, hierarchical network, multiple experts, and multiple identical networks (majority vote and average output decisions)-this paper introduces the cooperative modular neural network (CMNN). The CMNN classifier outperforms the surveyed nets due to its novel task decomposition and multi-module decision-making techniques.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.216 · 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