MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409771675 · doi:10.18254/s207987840032014-4

The Use of Artificial Cognitive Systems in Education and Science

2024· article· en· W4409771675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maxim Stichinscky

Bibliographic record

VenueIstoriya · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionCognitive sciencePsychologyComputer scienceMathematics educationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article is devoted to the use of artificial cognitive systems (ICS), artificial intelligence (AI), neural networks, artificial intelligent systems (AIS) in the field of education and science. The types and types of AI technologies are presented, and specific examples from world and Russian educational practice are considered. The paper also provides an overview of existing solutions using ICS in the scientific field in the fields of physics, medicine, astronomy, ecology, and historical research. In addition to describing new opportunities and prospects for the development of artificial intelligence technologies, the article analyzes the practice of their application in order to identify shortcomings or negative impacts on the subject, including: the use of outdated data, imitation of real people, lack of responsibility, unreliable information, copyright infringement, complex algorithms. The article also discusses the threats of using artificial intelligence for humanity. The cultural and philosophical aspects of the development of information cognitive systems are analyzed separately in the context of the theory of Canadian researcher M. McLuhan about the creation of various technologies by mankind and their impact on society.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIstoriyaSame topicCognitive Science and MappingFrench-language works237,207