MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771602144 · doi:10.15837/ijccc.2017.6.3111

Fuzzy Logic Is Not Fuzzy: World-renowned Computer Scientist Lotfi A. Zadeh

2017· article· en· W2771602144 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ioan Dziţac, Florin Gheorghe Filip, Mișu-Jan Manolescu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computers Communications & Control · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFuzzy Logic and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy logicSoft computingFuzzy setArtificial intelligenceComputational intelligenceFuzzy control systemComputer scienceMathematicsOperations research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1965 Lotfi A. Zadeh published "Fuzzy Sets", his pioneering and controversialpaper, that now reaches almost 100,000 citations. All Zadeh’s papers were citedover 185,000 times. Starting from the ideas presented in that paper, Zadeh foundedlater the Fuzzy Logic theory, that proved to have useful applications, from consumerto industrial intelligent products. We are presenting general aspects of Zadeh’s contributionsto the development of Soft Computing(SC) and Artificial Intelligence(AI),and also his important and early influence in the world and in Romania. Severalearly contributions in fuzzy sets theory were published by Romanian scientists, suchas: Grigore C. Moisil (1968), Constantin V. Negoita & Dan A. Ralescu (1974), DanButnariu (1978). In this review we refer the papers published in "From Natural Languageto Soft Computing: New Paradigms in Artificial Intelligence" (2008, Eds.: L.A.Zadeh, D. Tufis, F.G. Filip, I. Dzitac), and also from the two special issues (SI) of theInternational Journal of Computers Communications & Control (IJCCC, founded in2006 by I. Dzitac, F.G. Filip & M.J. Manolescu; L.A. Zadeh joined in 2008 to editorialboard). In these two SI, dedicated to the 90th birthday of Lotfi A. Zadeh (2011), andto the 50th anniversary of "Fuzzy Sets" (2015), were published some papers authoredby scientists from Algeria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, Hungary, Greece, Germany,Japan, Lithuania, Mexico, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Spain,Taiwan, UK and USA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations131
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computers Communications & ControlSame topicFuzzy Logic and Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207