MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169807456

Qualitative Model Abstraction for Diagnosis

2003· article· en· W2169807456 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbstractionDiscretizationComputer scienceProcess (computing)Task (project management)Artificial intelligenceQualitative analysisLandmarkData miningTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmQualitative researchEngineeringMathematicsProgramming languageSystems engineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building qualitative models is a crucial task for model-based diagnosis. This paper discusses the techniques to automatically transform a quantitative model in CAD environment into a qualitative model, under the cases that the real numbered landmarks are known and unknown. With known landmarks, the abstraction is through the discretization process where the simulation data is discretized according to the given landmarks. If landmarks are unknown, the landmark generation process, which is inspired by the discriminability analysis for multiple behaviour modes, is applicable. For dynamic systems, the pseudo-variables are introduced to describe the dynamic behaviour. The techniques developed are demonstrated by a simplified automotive subsystem.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.276 · 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