MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124228295

Analogical Reasoning and Semantic Rules of Inference

2015· article· en· W3124228295 on OpenAlexaff
Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton, Christopher W. Tindale

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMulti-Agent Systems and Negotiation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnalogyInferencePredicate (mathematical logic)AbstractionComputer scienceAnalogical reasoningRule of inferenceDefeasible reasoningCognitive scienceArtificial intelligenceDeductive reasoningNatural language processingMeaning (existential)AccidentalRhetoricSimilarity (geometry)Semantic featureEpistemologyPsychologyProgramming languageLinguisticsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analogy is represented as a twofold process of abstraction and species-genus inference. This type of analysis can account for essential (i.e. intentional) and accidental similarities. In dialectical analogies, the ones analyzed in the Topics, the abstraction singles out a feature that is part of or related to the meaning of the terms and that is relevant under the respect imposed by the analogical predicate. This process can shed light on the mechanisms underlying reasoning from accidental similarity analysed in the Rhetoric.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.555

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationFrench-language works237,207