MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fuzzy Information Modeling with the UML

2005· book-chapter· en· W2483744253 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

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2005
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsApplications of UMLClass diagramUnified Modeling LanguageUML toolComputer scienceObject Constraint LanguageConceptual modelConceptual schemaFuzzy logicSystems Modeling LanguageData miningData modelingProgramming languageSoftware engineeringClass (philosophy)Data model (GIS)DatabaseSoftwareArtificial intelligenceLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer applications in nontraditional areas have put requirements on conceptual data modeling. Some conceptual data models, being the tool of design databases, were proposed. However, information in real-world applications is often vague or ambiguous. Currently, less research has been done in modeling imprecision and uncertainty in conceptual data models. The UML (Unified Modeling Language) is a set of object-oriented modeling notations and is a standard of the Object Data Management Group (ODMG). It can be applied in many areas of software engineering and knowledge engineering. Increasingly, the UML is being applied to data modeling. In this chapter, different levels of fuzziness are introduced into the class of the UML and the corresponding graphical representations are given. The class diagrams of the UML can hereby model fuzzy information.

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 score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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