Contextual case-based reasoning applied to a mobile device
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to apply a contextual case-based reasoning (CBR) to a mobile device. The CBR method was chosen because it does not require training, demands minimal processing resources and easily integrates with the dynamic and uncertain nature of pervasive computing. Based on a mobile user’s location and activity, which can be determined through the device’s inertial sensors and GPS capabilities, it is possible to select and offer appropriate services to this user. Design/methodology/approach The proposed approach comprises two stages. The first stage uses simple semantic similarity measures to retrieve the case from the case base that best matches the current case. In the second stage, the obtained selection of services is then filtered based on current contextual information. Findings This two-stage method adds a higher level of relevance to the services proposed to the user; yet, it is easy to implement on a mobile device. Originality/value A two-stage CBR using light processing methods and generating context aware services is discussed. Ontological location modeling adds reasoning flexibility and knowledge sharing capabilities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it