Formal description of the cognitive process of problem solving
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the fundamental human cognitive processes is problem solving. Most of the decisions we make relate to some kind of problems we try to solve no matter how trivial and critical the problem may be. The problem solving process entails performing in a new situation with information acquired and knowledge learned from past situations. As a higher level cognitive process, problem solving involves the correlation process effort to connect newly encounter problem object(s) with the object-attribute-relation (OAR) model representation of knowledge in the brain. The goal of problem solving is to search along various solution paths within the problem solver's knowledge base in the memory. When a problem object is identified, problem solving can be perceived as a search process in the memory space for finding a relationship between a set of problem-solving goals and a set of alternative paths. This paper presents a mathematical and cognitive model that describes problem solving as a cognitive process. The cognitive structures of the brain and the mechanisms of internal knowledge representation behind the cognitive process of problem solving are explained. The cognitive process is then formally and rigorously described using real-time process algebra (RTPA) base on the aforementioned models. Extended discussions are presented on applications of the cognitive process model of problem solving in software engineering and psychology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".