A Mixed Rough Sets/Fuzzy Logic Approach for Modelling Systemic Performance Variability with FRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The task to understand systemic functioning and predict the behavior of today’s sociotechnical systems is a major challenge facing researchers due to the nonlinearity, dynamicity, and uncertainty of such systems. Many variables can only be evaluated in terms of qualitative terms due to their vague nature and uncertainty. In the first stage of our project, we proposed the application of the Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM), a recently emerging technique, to evaluate aircraft deicing operations from a systemic perspective. In the second stage, we proposed the integration of fuzzy logic into FRAM to construct a predictive assessment model capable of providing quantified outcomes to present more intersubjective and comprehensible results. The integration process of fuzzy logic was thorough and required significant effort due to the high number of input variables and the consequent large number of rules. In this paper, we aim to further improve the proposed prototype in the second stage by integrating rough sets as a data-mining tool to generate and reduce the size of the rule base and classify outcomes. Rough sets provide a mathematical framework suitable for deriving rules and decisions from uncertain and incomplete data. The mixed rough sets/fuzzy logic model was applied again here to the context of aircraft deicing operations, keeping the same settings as in the second stage to better compare both results. The obtained results were identical to the results of the second stage despite the significant reduction in size of the rule base. However, the presented model here is a simulated one constructed with ideal data sets accounting for all possible combinations of input variables, which resulted in maximum accuracy. The same should be further optimized and examined using real-world data to validate the results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".