MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Object and Relations Uncertainty

2012· article· en· W2901201431 on OpenAlexaff
Tony Francolini

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObject (grammar)CategorizationSet (abstract data type)Component (thermodynamics)Computer scienceUncertainty reduction theoryUncertainty analysisInformation exchangeLimit (mathematics)Measurement uncertaintyExtension (predicate logic)MathematicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyStatisticsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the goal of advancing the topic of components of uncertainty, I introduce a new uncertainty component-set, labeled object and relations uncertainty. To validate this component-set, I conducted two studies. In the first, I demonstrate that individuals perceive object and relations uncertainty as distinct components. Using multidimensional scaling, I determined individuals categorize uncertainty according to the degree that it concerns missing information related to the objects being exchanged (object uncertainty) or missing information related to the transactors conducting the exchange or the processes that govern the exchange (relations uncertainty). In the second study, I demonstrate the individuals respond differently to object and relations uncertainty. Using a script-based study, individuals chose to limit their behaviour n the presence of relations uncertainty, while choosing to augment information and develop options under object uncertainty. These findings account for response choices that are not accounted for by the degree of uncertainty perceived.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicSemantic Web and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207