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
Coordination and negotiation among agents are necessary when multiple agents are motivated to make a diagnosis for a patient together. In this paper a model of a multi-agent diagnosis helping system (MADHS) is given, where several knowledge-based systems are considered as cooperative agents in medical diagnoses. Fuzziness and uncertainty have been incorporated into decision trees to form the reasoning mechanism of agents. A novel coordination mechanism is then described, which is able to reach the final diagnosis compatible with both patient's anamnesis and existing medical principles. The model and reasoning mechanisms are implemented using Java, Java agent development framework (JADE), Java expert system shell (JESS) and NRC FuzzyJ Toolkit, and is tested by both traditional Chinese and western medical diagnosis examples. It is anticipated that the proposed system and technologies will be widely used in applicative areas, such as multi-agent medical diagnosis, medical helping, and other automatic diagnosis and decision making systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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