MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139893869 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2003.808190

Recursive information granulation: aggregation and interpretation issues

2003· article· en· W2139893869 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGranulationCluster analysisData miningRelevance (law)Computer scienceGranular computingSet (abstract data type)Fuzzy setInterpretation (philosophy)AlgorithmFuzzy logicData setRough setArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper contributes to the conceptual and algorithmic framework of information granulation. We revisit the role of information granules that are relevant to several main classes of technical pursuits involving temporal and spatial granulation. A detailed algorithm of information granulation, regarded as an optimization problem reconciling two conflicting design criteria, namely, a specificity of information granules and their experimental relevance (coverage of numeric data), is provided in the paper. The resulting information granules are formalized in the language of set theory (interval analysis). The uniform treatment of data points and data intervals (sets) allows for a recursive application of the algorithm. We assess the quality of information granules through application of the fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering algorithm. Numerical studies deal with two-dimensional (2D) synthetic data and experimental traffic 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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · 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