Relational Analogy and Abstraction for Design Reuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ion for Design Reuse Deborah Leishman 750 Fielding Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1V 7G4 Canada leishman@bnr.ca (613) 731-6933 Abstract Systems that focus on reuse of previous problem solving efforts either utilize independent sub-problems in a domain [Veloso, 1992; Bhansali, 1991] or determine what parts of an entire similar problem-solution pair is reusable [Leishman, 1994]. This distinction is true in many domains including planning, design and software and can be described in terms of systems that perform global versus local similarity assessment for reuse. This paper discusses the importance and applicability of global similarity assessment for problem solving by describing RELAY, a system that reuses spatial layout designs and focussing on its global matching portion. The mechanisms used in RELAY show that similarities in problem structure can result in full reuse of related process information. The use of abstractions of the problem structure also provides the computational efficienc...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".