Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37663348›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Intelligence across humans and machines: a joint perspective.

Tiago Buatim Nion Da Silveira, Heitor Silvério Lopes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. 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

2 authors.

Tiago Buatim Nion Da SilveiraComputational Intelligence Laboratory (LABIC), Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.
Heitor Silvério LopesComputational Intelligence Laboratory (LABIC), Federal University of Technology - Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper aims to address the divergences and contradictions in the definition of intelligence across different areas of knowledge, particularly in computational intelligence and psychology, where the concept is of significant interest. Despite the differences in motivation and approach, both fields have contributed to the rise of cognitive science. However, the lack of a standardized definition, empirical evidence, or measurement strategy for intelligence is a hindrance to cross-fertilization between these areas, particularly for semantic-based applications. This paper seeks to equalize the definitions of intelligence from the perspectives of computational intelligence and psychology, and offer an overview of the methods used to measure intelligence. We argue that there is no consensus for intelligence, and the term is interchangeably used with similar, opposed, or even contradictory definitions in many fields. This paper concludes with a summary of its central considerations and contributions, where we state intelligence is an agent's ability to process external and internal information to find an optimum adaptation (decision-making) to the environment according to its ontology and then decode this information as an output action.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceChatGPTCHC modelcomputational intelligencehuman intelligenceintelligence measurementIQsemantics

Identifiers

PMID37663348
PMCPMC10470035

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.