MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886830528 · doi:10.1049/joe.2018.8315

Information measure of absolute and relative quantification in double‐quantitative decision‐theoretic rough set model

2018· article· en· W2886830528 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

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Rough setMathematicsAbsolute (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceStatisticsData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The absolute and relative quantifications between the equivalence class and the target concept are the two important research endeavours in rough set theory. Double‐quantitative decision‐theoretic rough set (Dq‐DTRS) models utilise both absolute quantification and relative quantification in their upper and lower approximations to reflect the distinctive degrees of quantitative information. Herein, the authors apply the information theory to Dq‐DTRS model to characterise and measure these two types of quantitative information. The expressions of the information entropy with regard to the two quantifications and their corresponding information co‐entropy are presented in DqI‐DTRS model and DqII‐DTRSmodel, respectively. This work makes a further study of Dq‐DTRS models by discussing the information measures with respect to absolute and relative quantification.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.230 · 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