A Hybrid Approach to Representing Shared Conceptualization in Decentralized AI Systems: Integrating Epistemology, Ontology, and Epistemic Logic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly being deployed in decentralized environments where they interact with other AI systems and humans. In these environments, each participant may have different ways of expressing the same semantics, leading to challenges in communication and collaboration. To address these challenges, this paper presents a novel hybrid model for shared conceptualization in decentralized AI systems. This model integrates ontology, epistemology, and epistemic logic, providing a formal framework for representing and reasoning about shared conceptualization. It captures both the intensional and extensional components of the conceptualization structure and incorporates epistemic logic to capture knowledge and belief relationships between agents. The model’s unique contribution lies in its ability to handle different perspectives and beliefs, making it particularly suitable for decentralized environments. To demonstrate the model’s practical application and effectiveness, it is applied to a scenario in the healthcare sector. The results show that the model has the potential to improve AI system performance in a decentralized context by enabling efficient communication and collaboration among agents. This study fills a gap in the literature concerning the representation of shared conceptualization in decentralized environments and provides a foundation for future research in this area.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".