MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253372947 · doi:10.1093/logcom/13.1.3

Controlled Revision - An algorithmic approach for belief revision

2003· article· en· W4253372947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Gabbay, G. Pigozzi, John Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Logic and Computation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceBelief revisionLibrary scienceOperations researchArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1Department of Computer Science, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS. e-mail: [email protected], 2Department of Philosophy, University of Konstanz, Germany. e-mail: [email protected], 3The Abductive Systems Group, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z1, and Department of Computer Science, King's College, London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS e-mail: [email protected] Received November 2001.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations30
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Logic and ComputationSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207