MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202464090 · doi:10.1109/nafips.2001.943799

How to make sure that "≅100"+1 is ≅100 in fuzzy arithmetic: solution and its (inevitable) drawbacks

2002· article· en· W2202464090 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsArithmeticKilogramFuzzy logicProperty (philosophy)Associative propertyMathematicsComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsAlgebra over a fieldArtificial intelligencePure mathematicsBody weight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the common-sense viewpoint, if a person who weighs around 100 kilograms gains one more kilogram, his weight is still around 100 kilograms. Alas, not so in traditional fuzzy arithmetic. In this paper, we propose a modification of fuzzy arithmetic which does have this property. We gain the desired property, but there is no free lunch - we have to lose two important properties of the traditional fuzzy arithmetic: first, addition is no longer always associative; second, addition is no longer always easily computable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207