Bibliographic record
Abstract
We discuss a problem of synthesis and analysis of rules based on experimental numeric data. Two descriptors of the rules that are viewed individually and en block are introduced. The coverage of the rules is quantified in terms of the data being covered by the antecedents and conclusions standing in the rule. Although this index describes each rule individually, the consistency of the rule deals with the quality of the rule viewed compared with other rules. It expresses how much the rule “interacts” with others in the sense that its conclusion is affected (distorted) by the conclusion parts coming from other rules. We propose a synthetic index of rule relevance that combines the two already introduced descriptors. We show how the rules are formed by means of fuzzy clustering and their quality is evaluated by means of the aforementioned indexes. Global characteristics of a set of rules also are discussed and related to the number of information granules formed in the space of antecedents and conclusions. Finally, we discuss the rules in the setting of granular modeling and express their performance in the design of numeric models. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".