Implementing an Intuitive Reasoner for Predicting Continuous Weather Variables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, the implementation of a rule-based intuitive reasoner is presented. The implementation included the rule induction module and the intuitive reasoner. A large weather database was acquired as the data source. Five weather variables from those data were chosen as the "target variables" whose values were predicted. A "complex" situation was simulated by making only subsets of the data available to the rule induction module. As a result, the rules induced were based on incomplete information with variable levels of certainty. Multiple linear regression was employed to induce rules from the data subsets. The intuitive reasoner was tested for its ability to use the induced rules to predict the values of the target variables. For reference, a weather data analysis approach which had been applied on similar tasks was adopted to analyze the complete database and create predictive models for the same five target variables. The intuitive reasoner showed potential by achieving prediction accuracy which compared favorably with that of the reference approach for two target variables, based on rules induced from only about 10% of the total data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it