Hierarchies of Architectures of Collaborative Computational Intelligence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational Intelligence (CI) supports a wealth of methodologies and a plethora of algorithmic developments essential to the construction of intelligent systems. Being faced with inherently distributed data which become evident, the paradigm of CI calls for further enhancements along the line of designing systems that are hierarchical and collaborative in nature. This emerging direction could be referred to as collaborative Computational Intelligence (or C2I for brief). The pervasive phenomenon encountered in architectures of C2I is that collaboration is synonym of knowledge sharing, knowledge reuse and knowledge reconciliation. Knowledge itself comes in different ways: as some structural findings in data and usually formalized in the framework of information granules, locally available models, some action plans, classification schemes, and alike. In such distributed systems sharing data is not feasible given existing technical constraints which are quite often exacerbated by non-technical requirements of privacy or security. In this study, we elaborate on the design of information granules which comes hand in hand with various clustering techniques and fuzzy clustering, in particular.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it