MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114918782 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.1998.685972

EVOL: ensembles voting online

2002· article· en· W2114918782 on OpenAlexaff
G. Auda, Mohamed S. Kamel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceModular designFocus (optics)Scheme (mathematics)Machine learningArtificial neural networkProcess (computing)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cooperation by voting is one of the popular modular neural network decision-making strategies. Ensemble classifiers are multiple identical modules which use voting for post-learning classification. This paper suggests a new cooperation scheme for ensembles which utilizes voting in the learning process itself. According to the suggested scheme, different modules would, automatically, focus on different regions in the input space. Hence, temporal crosstalk decreases and decision boundaries are drawn accurately in complex overlapping regions of the input space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207