MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175700267

Generalized multi-context systems

2014· article· en· W2175700267 on OpenAlexaff
Shahab Tasharrofi, Eugenia Ternovska

Bibliographic record

VenuePrinciples of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOperational semanticsWell-founded semanticsSemantics (computer science)Context (archaeology)Computer scienceFormal semantics (linguistics)Proof-theoretic semanticsComputational semanticsDenotational semanticsAction semanticsTheoretical computer scienceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-context systems (MCSs) define a versatile framework for integrating and reasoning about knowledge from different (heterogeneous) sources. In MCSs, different types of nonmonotonic reasoning are characterized by different semantics such as equilibrium semantics and grounded equilibrium semantics [Brewka and Eiter, 2007]. We introduce a novel semantics of MCSs, a supported equilibrium semantics. Our semantics is based on a new notion of support. The strength of supports determines a spectrum of semantics that, in particular, contains the equilibrium and grounded equilibrium semantics. In this way, our supported equilibrium semantics generalizes these previously defined semantics. Moreover, the strength of supports gives us a measure to compare different semantics of MCSs.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrinciples of Knowledge Representation and ReasoningSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207