MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134783347 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1995.526411

Comparative study of two knowledge-based development systems: flex/Prolog and ATOME/LISP

2002· article· en· W2134783347 on OpenAlexaff
J.-M. Dirand, Vincent Chevrier, R. Gonzalez-Rubio

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDistributed and Parallel Computing Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrologBlackboard systemComputer scienceLispDatalogFLEXProgramming languageExpert systemImplementationKnowledge representation and reasoningTransformerSoftware engineeringBlackboard (design pattern)Artificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To illustrate the approaches of the Quintus flex/Prolog system and the Nancy University blackboard-based applications generator, the authors undertake a comparison of modules of an expert system for electric transformer design, implemented on the respective development systems. After setting some typical instances in context, they present the different implementations at the levels of knowledge representation, management of control in the reasoning process, and the treatments themselves. The approaches are compared in terms of ease of knowledge modelling and structuring, control of reasoning, and capacity of treatment.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.850
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.235 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDistributed and Parallel Computing SystemsFrench-language works237,207