MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211079681 · doi:10.1017/9781108164085.005

Reasoning with Constraints

2017· book-chapter· en· W4211079681 on OpenAlexaff
David Poole, Alan K. Mackworth

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransformational leadershipAppealArtificial intelligenceSpace (punctuation)ComprehensionCognitive sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence, including machine learning, has emerged as a transformational science and engineering discipline. Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents presents AI using a coherent framework to study the design of intelligent computational agents. By showing how the basic approaches fit into a multidimensional design space, readers learn the fundamentals without losing sight of the bigger picture. The new edition also features expanded coverage on machine learning material, as well as on the social and ethical consequences of AI and ML. The book balances theory and experiment, showing how to link them together, and develops the science of AI together with its engineering applications. Although structured as an undergraduate and graduate textbook, the book's straightforward, self-contained style will also appeal to an audience of professionals, researchers, and independent learners. The second edition is well-supported by strong pedagogical features and online resources to enhance student comprehension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.007

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningFrench-language works237,207