MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100364829 · doi:10.1111/0824-7935.00165

Probabilistic Decision Tables in the Variable Precision Rough Set Model

2001· article· en· W2100364829 on OpenAlexaff
Wojciech Ziarko

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Intelligence · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance-based rough set approachRough setDecision tableExtension (predicate logic)Probabilistic logicDecision ruleMathematicsData miningComputer scienceTable (database)Focus (optics)Decision modelVariable (mathematics)Set (abstract data type)Weighted sum modelArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmDecision treeMachine learningInfluence diagram

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Variable Precision Rough Set Model (VPRS) is an extension of the original rough set model. This extension is directed towards deriving decision table‐based predictive models from data with parametrically adjustable degrees of accuracy. The imprecise nature of such models leads to quite significant modification of the classical notion of decision table. This is accomplished by introducing the idea of approximation region‐based, or probabilistic decision table which is a tabular specification of three, in general uncertain, disjunctive decision rules corresponding to rough approximation regions: positive, boundary and negative regions. The focus of the paper is on the extraction of such decision tables from data, their relationship to conjunctive rules and probabilistic assessment of decision confidence with such rules.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations69
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational IntelligenceSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207