MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145528844 · doi:10.1109/coginf.2003.1225947

On information and knowledge representation in the brain

2004· article· en· W2145528844 on OpenAlexafffund
Yingxu Wang, Liu Dong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Computing and Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)CognitionKnowledge representation and reasoningHuman brainObject (grammar)Cognitive modelArtificial intelligenceRelation (database)InformaticsCognitive scienceData miningPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cognitive models of information representation and the capacity of human memory are fundamental research areas in cognitive informatics, which help to reveal the mechanism and potential of the brain. This paper develops the object-attribute-relation (OAR) model for describing information representation and storage in the brain. According to the OAR model, the human memory and knowledge are represented by relations, i.e. connections of synapses between neurons, rather than by the neurons themselves as the traditional container metaphor described. Based on the OAR model, the memory capacity of the human brain is calculated as in the order of 10/sup 8432/ bits. The determination of the magnitude of human memory capacity is not only theoretically significant in cognitive informatics, but also practically useful to estimate the human potential, as well as the gap between the natural and machine intelligence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Computing and NetworksFrench-language works237,207