MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155584919 · doi:10.1049/cit2.12034

Constrained tolerance rough set in incomplete information systems

2021· article· en· W3155584919 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

VenueCAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRough setRelation (database)Set (abstract data type)Matching (statistics)MathematicsObject (grammar)Mathematical proofData miningClass (philosophy)Degree (music)Computer scienceNull (SQL)Theoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The tolerance rough set is developed as one of the outstanding extensions of the Pawlak's rough set model under incomplete information, and the limited tolerance relation is developed to overcome the problem that objects leniently satisfy the tolerance relation. However, the classification based on the limited tolerance relationship cannot reflect the matching degree of uncertain information of objects. In this article, we explore the influence of null values in an incomplete system, and propose the constrained tolerance relation based on the matching degree of uncertain information of objects. The proposed rough set based on the constrained tolerance relation can provide a more detailed structure of an object class through threshold. Proofs and example analyses further show the rationality and superiority of the proposed model.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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