MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391127583 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc117-20

Research on the Application Effect of Metalearning Method Based on Prototype Network in Corrective Measures for Member State Audit

2023· article· en· W4391127583 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditComputer scienceGeneralizationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAccountingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMO Member State audits aim to identify non-compliant behavior with the requirements of relevant instruments, enabling the implementation of corrective measures to enhance performance. However, the complexity and diversity of IMO instruments’ requirements result in low evaluation effectiveness and efficiency in current assessment methods of implementation of IMO instruments. To address this challenge, this study proposes a meta-learning model based on prototype networks, focusing on the corrective measures outlined in consolidated audit summary reports approved and issued by the IMO Secretariat. The suggested model conducts meta-learning using small samples, offering a swift and straightforward assessment method. It facilitates the fine classification of corrective measures, providing a way for the consistent and effective assessment of various countries’ current implementation practices. Empirical results of two strategies demonstrate improved classification accuracy. In comparison with traditional manual evaluation, the proposed method achieves accuracy value 71.61% and 65.78% in two strategies respectively. Furthermore, the model exhibits varying prediction accuracy across different articles and demonstrates robust generalization capabilities, highlighting its practicality.

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.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.305 · 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