MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Cognitive Computational Knowledge Representation Theory

2011· book-chapter· en· W4240420143 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Najjar, André Mayers

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceCognitionKnowledge representation and reasoningCognitive scienceField (mathematics)Cognitive modelComputational modelArtificial intelligencePsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Encouraging results of last years in the field of knowledge representation within virtual learning environments confirms that artificial intelligence research in this topic find it very beneficial to integrate the knowledge psychological research have accumulated on understanding the cognitive mechanism of human learning and all the positive results obtained in computational modelling theories. This chapter introduces a novel cognitive and computational knowledge representation approach inspired by cognitive theories which explain the human cognitive activity in terms of memory subsystems and their processes, and whose aim is to suggest formal computational models of knowledge that offer efficient and expressive representation structures for virtual learning. Practical studies both contribute to validate the novel approach and permit to draw general conclusions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine LearningSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207