MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164626058 · doi:10.1109/tsmcb.2004.835081

KASER: knowledge amplification by structured expert randomization

2004· article· en· W2164626058 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart H. Rubin, S.N.J. Murthy, Michael H. Smith, Ljiljana Trajković

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceRandomnessDiceObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceInheritance (genetic algorithm)Expert systemDomain (mathematical analysis)Natural language processingTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper and attached video, we present a third-generation expert system named Knowledge Amplification by Structured Expert Randomization (KASER) for which a patent has been filed by the U.S. Navy's SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA (SSC SD). KASER is a creative expert system. It is capable of deductive, inductive, and mixed derivations. Its qualitative creativity is realized by using a tree-search mechanism. The system achieves creative reasoning by using a declarative representation of knowledge consisting of object trees and inheritance. KASER computes with words and phrases. It possesses a capability for metaphor-based explanations. This capability is useful in explaining its creative suggestions and serves to augment the capabilities provided by the explanation subsystems of conventional expert systems. KASER also exhibits an accelerated capability to learn. However, this capability depends on the particulars of the selected application domain. For example, application domains such as the game of chess exhibit a high degree of geometric symmetry. Conversely, application domains such as the game of craps played with two dice exhibit no predictable pattern, unless the dice are loaded. More generally, we say that domains whose informative content can be compressed to a significant degree without loss (or with relatively little loss) are symmetric. Incompressible domains are said to be asymmetric or random. The measure of symmetry plus the measure of randomness must always sum to unity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics Part B (Cybernetics)Same topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207