MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109729402 · doi:10.1109/igarss.1996.516969

Case-based reasoning and software agents for intelligent forest information management

2002· article· en· W2109729402 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel A. Charlebois, D.G. Goodenough, A. Bhogal, Stan Matwin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Sport Centre Pacific
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetadataComputer scienceSoftwareDatabaseGeographic information systemMetadata repositoryMetadata modelingWorld Wide WebInformation retrievalRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To perform forest information management, SEIDAM integrates forest cover descriptions, topographic maps and remote sensing imagery. SEIDAM relies on an online robotic data storage device, image and GIS metadata databases, software agents and a case-based reasoning system to deliver information to decision makers in a timely fashion. The image and GIS metadata databases contain information about the sources of data, where the data are stored, where they have been delivered and the processing they have undergone. The software agents perform the actual processing by running image analysis, GIS, database and other software to accomplish specific tasks. The case-based reasoning system relies on the software agents, past experience from domain experts and information from the metadata databases to determine what processing is required to deliver products satisfying user goals. This paper describes the intelligent inventory update function in SEIDAM and its AI methodology.

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)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207