MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386914033 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcce.2023.09.004

Research on the standardization strategy of granular computing

2023· article· en· W4386914033 on OpenAlexaff
Donghang Liu, Xuekui Shangguan, Keyu Wei, Chensi Wu, Xiaoying Zhao, Qifeng Sun, Yaoyu Zhang, Ruijun Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRough Sets and Fuzzy Logic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMinistry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsGranular computingStandardizationComputer scienceScope (computer science)Cognitive computingsortInformation processingArtificial intelligenceCognitionDatabaseRough set

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As intelligent systems continue to evolve, problems are becoming increasingly complex. The constant abundance of data puts a higher demand on the value of data utilization. Granular computing is a new computational paradigm for complex problem-solving. It takes structured thinking, structured problem-solving methods, and structured information processing patterns as its research objects and belongs to the scope of higher-level human cognitive mechanism research. The development and application of granular computing must be more standardized and unified. The granular computing standardization strategy is the most direct means to promote the regularization of granular computing. In this paper, we first sort out the main applications of granular computing in standards. According to the characteristics of granular computing, a framework of its standard system is proposed to provide a reference for the subsequent research of granular computing standards. The next direction of the granular computing standards strategy is discussed, and solutions are given.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Computing in EngineeringSame topicRough Sets and Fuzzy LogicFrench-language works237,207