MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141950232

Rough set data representation using binary decision diagrams.

2004· article· es· W2141950232 on OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Muir

Bibliographic record

VenueHispana · 2004
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBrock UniversityUniversities Space Research Association
KeywordsBinary decision diagramRough setRepresentation (politics)Binary numberDiagramFocus (optics)Set (abstract data type)Data miningInfluence diagramComputer scienceBinary dataBinary relationDecision ruleMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceDecision treeArtificial intelligenceDiscrete mathematicsDatabase
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new information system representation, which inherently represents indiscernibility is presented.The basic structure of this representation is a Binary Decision Diagram.We offer testing results for converting large data sets into a Binary Decision Diagram Information System representation, and show how indiscernibility can be efficiently determined.Furthermore, a Binary Decision Diagram is used in place of a relative discernibility matrix to allow for more efficient determination of the discernibility function than previous methods.The current focus is to build an implementation that aids in understanding how binary decision diagrams can improve Rough Set Data Analysis methods. Representaci ón de datos de conjuntos aproximados mediante diagramas de decisi ón binariosResumen.Se expone una nueva representación de sistema de información, que incorpora inherentemente la indiscernibilidad.La estructura básica de esta representación es un diagrama de decisión binario.Se ofrecen los resultados de unas pruebas llevadas a cabo para convertir grandes conjuntos de datos en una representación de sistema de información de diagrama de decisión binario, y se muestra cómo se puede determinar, de forma eficaz, la indiscernibilidad.Además, se utiliza un diagrama de decisión binario en lugar de una matriz de discernibilidad relativa para permitir que la determinación de la función de discernibilidad sea más eficaz que en los métodos anteriores.Actualmente, el interés se centra en la construcción de una implementación que ayude a entender cómo los diagramas de decisión binarios pueden mejorar los métodos de análisis de datos de los conjuntos aproximados.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHispanaSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207