MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905213535 · doi:10.5430/air.v7n2p55

Knowledge representation with T

2018· article· en· W2905213535 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boris Sunik

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLinguistic Studies and Language Acquisition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVocabularyRepresentation (politics)Human languageSet (abstract data type)Semantics (computer science)Knowledge representation and reasoningLinguisticsNatural language processingTacit knowledgeNatural languageArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageKnowledge management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The universal representation language T proposed in the article is the set of linguistic items employed in the manner of a natural language with the purpose of information exchange between various communicators. The language is not confined to any particular representation domain, implementation, communicator or discourse type. Assuming there is sufficient vocabulary, each text composed in any of the human languages can be adequately translated to T in the same way as it can be translated to another human language. The semantics transmitted by T code consist of conventional knowledge regarding objects, actions, properties, states and so on.T allows the explicit expression of kinds of information traditionally considered as inexpressible, like tacit knowledge or even non-human knowledge.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicLinguistic Studies and Language AcquisitionFrench-language works237,207