MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109317979 · doi:10.1007/s40747-020-00228-2

Fuzzy cognitive maps in systems risk analysis: a comprehensive review

2020· review· en· W3109317979 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

VenueComplex & Intelligent Systems · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy cognitive mapComputational intelligenceContext (archaeology)Field (mathematics)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceRisk managementHazardFuzzy logicManagement scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringFuzzy setGeographyMedicineMathematicsMembership functionBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fuzzy cognitive maps (FCMs) have been widely applied to analyze complex, causal-based systems in terms of modeling, decision making, analysis, prediction, classification, etc. This study reviews the applications and trends of FCMs in the field of systems risk analysis to the end of August 2020. To this end, the concepts of failure, accident, incident, hazard, risk, error, and fault are focused in the context of the conventional risks of the systems. After reviewing risk-based articles, a bibliographic study of the reviewed articles was carried out. The survey indicated that the main applications of FCMs in the systems risk field were in management sciences, engineering sciences and industrial applications, and medical and biological sciences. A general trend for potential FCMs’ applications in the systems risk field is provided by discussing the results obtained from different parts of the survey study.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.209 · 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