MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165173786 · doi:10.1080/713827118

Structuration of phenotypes and genotypes through galois lattices and implications

2003· article· en· W2165173786 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Duquenne, Caroline Chabert, Améziane Cherfouh, Anne‐Lise Doyen, Jean‐Maurice Delabar, Douglas Pickering

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Artificial Intelligence · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIntensionExtension (predicate logic)Set (abstract data type)Binary numberBasis (linear algebra)Matching (statistics)Binary relationTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsDiscrete mathematicsArithmeticStatisticsLinguisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Galois Lattice of a binary relation formalizes it as a concept system, dually ordered in "extension"/"intension." All implications between conjunctions of properties holding in it are summarized by a canonical basis--all basis having the same cardinality. We report how these tools structure phenotypes/genotypes in behavior genetics. The first study on phenotypes of laterality has a unique set of features and two sets of instances (left-/right-handers) for which the corresponding sets of rules are compared, while the second study on partial trisomy 21 uses a unique instance set (patients) to explore the matching between two sets of features: phenotypes and genetic causes. Hence, both situations comprise two binary data sets that are paired through either a column or a row matching, which raises specific questions. If the data are small, as compared with databases in bioinformatics, this illustrates how these abstract tools can unfold better interpretations.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Artificial IntelligenceSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207