MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161019132 · doi:10.1109/tai.1990.130317

Specification of expert systems

2002· article· en· W2161019132 on OpenAlexaff
Aïda Batarekh, Alun Preece, Anne Bennett, Peter Grogono

Bibliographic record

Venue[1990] Proceedings of the 2nd International IEEE Conference on Tools for Artificial Intelligence · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlueprintSystem requirements specificationComputer scienceSoftware engineeringFormal specificationSoftware requirements specificationFocus (optics)Programming languageAlgebraic specificationFunctional specificationSpecification languageSoftwareSoftware developmentSoftware designEngineeringSoftware construction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors focus on the problems of specification of an expert system namely, what needs to be specified, what can be specified and how. Two distinct major roles for a software specification are identified: as a contract between parties involved in system development and as a blueprint for the design and implementation of the system. It is shown that these purposes require quite different specifications. The role of specification as a contract is taken by the problem specification, which essentially describes what system is to be built. The blueprint specification is complementary, and describes how the system is to be built, including a description of the knowledge to be used and a description of how to represent and reason with that knowledge.>

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.006

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue[1990] Proceedings of the 2nd International IEEE Conference on Tools for Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207