MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154500141 · doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2007.905912

Toward a Theory of Granular Computing for Human-Centered Information Processing

2008· article· en· W2154500141 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of NottinghamCanada Research ChairsNottingham Trent University
KeywordsGranular computingInformation processingComputer scienceFormalism (music)Fuzzy setInformation processing theoryFuzzy logicContext (archaeology)Context modelInformation technologyArtificial intelligenceData scienceTheoretical computer scienceRough set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human-centered information processing has been pioneered by Zadeh through his introduction of the concept of fuzzy sets in the mid 1960s. The insights that were afforded through this formalism have led to the development of the granular computing (GrC) paradigm in the late 1990s. Subsequent research has highlighted the fact that many founding principles of GrC have, in fact, been adopted in other information-processing paradigms and, indeed, in the context of various scientific methodologies. This study expands on our earlier research exploring the foundations of GrC and casting it as a structured combination of algorithmic and non- algorithmic information processing that mimics human, intelligent synthesis of knowledge from information.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.198 · 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