A Hybrid Approach to Representing Shared Conceptualization in Decentralized AI Systems: Integrating Epistemology, Ontology, and Epistemic Logic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in decentralized environments is on the rise, yet representation of shared conceptualization in such scenarios remains a challenging issue. The absence of a shared understanding can lead to suboptimal performance of AI systems and hinders the ability to comprehend the knowledge and beliefs of agents in the domain. This paper proposes a formal model for modeling conceptualization in AI systems that integrates ontology, epistemology, and epistemic logic. The model aims to address the gap in representing shared conceptualization in decentralized environments and enhance the performance of AI systems operating in such environments. The proposed model is a hybrid structure that blends extensional and intensional structures and leverages logic-based languages for modeling purposes. A case study in the healthcare sector is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed model. The study contributes to the existing literature by providing a formal model for representing shared conceptualization in decentralized environments, which can be utilized to optimize the performance of AI systems in these environments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".