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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 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

Citations13
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207