MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997753080 · doi:10.22215/etd/2019-13687

Cognitive Modeling as a Method for Agent Development in Artificial Intelligence

2019· dissertation· en· W2997753080 on OpenAlex
Katelyn Dudzik

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

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestbedComputer scienceIterative and incremental developmentCognitive modelTask (project management)CognitionProcess (computing)Artificial intelligenceIntelligent agentHuman–computer interactionMachine learningSoftware engineeringSystems engineeringEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to expand the applications of cognitive modeling by exploring the use of a testbed approach to modeling human behaviour. Newell's complex task analysis method (1990) was applied to model an agent completing a complex task through incremental and iterative design to test the agent's ability to fluidly monitor and react to internal and external interruptions and perform the tasks at an expert level successfully through simulated challenge sets within different environments. A single agent is developed incrementally over five stages of distinct simulated challenge sets, with testing for backwards compatibility. The testbed approach and incremental development provides insight to agent-specific cognitive structure functionality, and to the process of combining microcognition and macrocognition in cognitive modeling.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207