MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592155077 · doi:10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0443

Special Issue on the Sixth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (AFSS' 2004)

2006· article· en· W2592155077 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueJournal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicComputer scienceFuzzy setSoft computingArtificial intelligenceConstraint (computer-aided design)Artificial neural networkOperations researchTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This special issue features five papers devoted to fuzzy systems and their applications. Papers were selected from those accepted and presented at the Sixth International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (AFSS' 2004) held in Hanoi, Vietnam on December 15-17, 2004. AFSS' 2004 and Tutorials held in Hue city on December 18-19, 2004, included a wide spectrum of research topics on "fuzzy set theory", "intelligent technology", "fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning", "neural networks", "genetic algorithms", "hybrid systems" and "soft computing". Over 40 papers were accepted and presented by researchers from countries including Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, India, Korea, Malaysia, Japan and Vietnam. Five papers receiving outstanding recommendations in reviews have been selected for this issue. The topics they address include fuzzy logic for robots, data mining, neural networks in medicine, Fuzzy Constraint Satisfaction Problems, and hybrid systems. As editors of this special issue, we are sincerely grateful to the authors. Special thanks also go to the referees for their excellent work, to Mr. Kazuki Ohmori for his aid in coordinating the issue's publication, and to the JACIII Editorial Board, especially Professor Kaoru Hirota for his invaluable support and encouragement. Finally, we thank Professors Masao Mukaidono and Witold Pedrycz for their contributions to AFSS' 2004. Without their support, AFSS' 2004 and this issue would not have been possible.

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 categoriesnone
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 score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.239 · 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