Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34876895›Full record

ReviewComputational intelligence and neuroscience2021

A Theoretical Comprehensive Framework for the Process of Theories Formation.

Goded Shahaf

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational intelligence and neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Goded ShahafThe Applied Neurophysiology Laboratory, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2674-3585

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientists rely more and more upon computerized data mining and artificial intelligence to analyze data sets and identify association rules, which serve as the basis of evolving theories. This tendency is likely to expand, and computerized intelligence is likely to take a leading role in scientific theorizing. While the ever-advancing technology could be of great benefit, scientists with expertise in many research fields do not necessarily understand thoroughly enough the various assumptions, which underlie different data mining methods and which pose significant limitations on the association rules that could be identified in the first place. There seems to be a need for a comprehensive framework, which should present the various possible technological aids in the context of our neurocognitive process of theorizing and identifying association rules. Such a framework can be hopefully used to understand, identify, and overcome the limitations of the currently fragmented processes of technology-based theorizing and the formation of association rules in any research field. In order to meet this end, we divide theorizing into underlying neurocognitive components, describe their current technological expansions and limitations, and offer a possible comprehensive computational framework for each such component and their combination.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceIntelligenceData Mining

Identifiers

PMID34876895
PMCPMC8645363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.