MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102673888 · doi:10.1609/aimag.v30i1.2196

AAAI 2008 Workshop Reports

2009· article· en· W2102673888 on OpenAlexaff
Sarabjot Singh Anand, Răzvan Bunescu, Vı́tor Carvalho, Jan Chomicki, Vincent Conitzer, Michael T. Cox, Virginia Dignum, Zachary Dodds, Mark Dredze, David Furcy, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, Mehmet H. Göker, Hans W. Guesgen, Haym Hirsh, Dietmar Jannach, Ulrich Junker, Wolfgang Ketter, Alfred Kobsa, Sven Koenig, Tessa Lau, Lundy Lewis, Eric T. Matson, Ted Metzler, Rada Mihalcea, Bamshad Mobasher, Joëlle Pineau, Pascal Poupart, Anita Raja, Wheeler Ruml, Norman Sadeh, Guy Shani, Daniel Shapiro, Trey Smith, Matthew E. Taylor, Kiri L. Wagstaff, William Walsh, Rong Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Magazine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalizationRoboticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceApplications of artificial intelligenceRobotHuman–computer interactionWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AAAI was pleased to present the AAAI‐08 Workshop Program, held Sunday and Monday, July 13–14, in Chicago, Illinois, USA. The program included the following 15 workshops: Advancements in POMDP Solvers; AI Education Workshop Colloquium; Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems, Enhanced Messaging; Human Implications of Human‐Robot Interaction; Intelligent Techniques for Web Personalization and Recommender Systems; Metareasoning: Thinking about Thinking; Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling; Search in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics; Spatial and Temporal Reasoning; Trading Agent Design and Analysis; Transfer Learning for Complex Tasks; What Went Wrong and Why: Lessons from AI Research and Applications; and Wikipedia and Artificial Intelligence: An Evolving Synergy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1950.182

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAI MagazineSame topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207