MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151152712 · doi:10.1348/000711002760554516

Skill set analysis in knowledge structures

2002· article· en· W2151152712 on OpenAlexaff
Günther Gediga, Ivo Düntsch

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsistency (knowledge bases)Set (abstract data type)Interpretation (philosophy)Computer scienceTest (biology)Cognitive psychologyEmpirical researchTest theoryArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPsychologyStatisticsPsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend the theory of knowledge structures by taking into account information about the skills a subject has. In the first part of the paper we exhibit some structural properties of the skill-problem relationship and consequences for the interpretation of concurrent theories in terms of the skill theory. The second part of the paper offers a test theory based on skill functions: we present measurements for the data consistency of the skill-problem relationship, and estimate abilities in terms of lower and/or upper boundaries of problem states and skills, given a special instance of the skill-problem relationship. Some practical considerations are discussed, which enable the user of a skill-based system to optimize a partial theory about the skill-based behaviour of subjects based on empirical results.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations58
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical PsychologySame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207