Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem considered in this paper is how to approximate sets of objects that are qualitatively but not necessarily spatially near each other. The term qualitatively near is used here to mean closeness of descriptions or distinctive characteristics of objects. The solution to this problem is inspired by the work of Zdzislaw Pawlak during the early 1980s on the classification of objects by means of their attributes. This article introduces a special theory of the nearness of objects that are either static (do not change) or dynamic (change over time). The basic approach is to consider a link relation, which is defined relative to measurements associated with features shared by objects independent of their spatial relations. One of the outcomes of this work is the introduction of new forms of approximations of objects and sets of objects. The nearness of objects can be approximated using rough set methods. The proposed approach to approximation of objects is a straightforward extension of the rough set approach to approximating objects, where approximation can be considered in the context of information granules (neighborhoods). In addition, the usual rough set approach to concept approximation has been enriched by an increase in the number of granules (neighborhoods) associated with the classification of a concept as near to its approximation. A byproduct of the proposed approximation method is what we call a near set. It should also be observed that what is presented in this paper is considered a special (not a general) theory about nearness of objects. The contribution of this article is an approach to nearness as a vague concept which can be approximated from the state of objects and domain 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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".