Architectural Methodology Based on Intentional Configuration of Behaviors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intelligence has been an object of study for a long time. Different architectures try to capture and reproduce these aspects into artificial systems (or agents), but there is still no agreement on how to integrate them into a general framework. With this objective in mind, we propose an architectural methodology based on the idea of intentional configuration of behaviors. Behavior‐producing modules are used as basic control components that are selected and modified dynamically according to the intentions of the agent. These intentions are influenced by the situation perceived, knowledge about the world, and internal variables that monitor the state of the agent. The architectural methodology preserves the emergence of functionality associated with the behavior‐based paradigm in the more abstract levels involved in configuring the behaviors. Validation of this architecture is done using a simulated world for mobile robots, in which the agent must deal with various goals such as managing its energy and its well‐being, finding targets, and acquiring knowledge about its environment. Fuzzy logic, a topologic map learning algorithm, and activation variables with a propagation mechanism are used to implement the architecture for this agent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it