MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552940174 · doi:10.1145/2910674.2910689

Cognitive Errors Detection

2016· article· en· W2552940174 on OpenAlexafffund
Jianguo Hao, Sébastien Gaboury, Bruno Bouchard

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCognitionInferenceComputer scienceCognitive impairmentProcess (computing)Activities of daily livingGraphCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

People with cognitive impairment have difficulties in planning and correctly undertaking activities of daily living due to severe deterioration in cognitive skills. As a promising solution, smart homes try to make these people live on their own with less nursing care by providing appropriate cognitive assistance while carrying out activities. For the sake of providing adequate assistance, it is necessary to understand the real intentions of residents and recognize possible anomalous trends in time during the process of performing an activity. In this paper, we analyze the abnormal behavioral patterns caused by cognitive deficits and summarize them as cognitive errors which appear frequently among people with cognitive impairment. Cognitive error detectors are designed and integrated into a unified inference engine based on Formal Concept Analysis theory. The inference engine establishes a knowledge graph hierarchically representing the interrelations between indexed activities to recognize ongoing activities, and to detect predefined cognitive errors in behavioral data streams.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207