Cited by 83Logic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeMachine Learning and AlgorithmsBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference

Logic for Learning

Lloyd, J. W.·2003·Cognitive Technologies

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-662-08406-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Various higher-order logic learning frameworks have difficulties in incorporation of background knowledge and compatibility with more developed logic programming frameworks.

    “Various authors (Feng and Muggleton 1992; Lloyd 2003) have advocated higher-order logic learning frameworks. However, to date these approaches have difficulties in incorporation of background knowledge and compatibility with more developed logic programming frameworks.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lloyd, J. W.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Lloyd, J. W.
Venue
Cognitive Technologies
Published
2003
ISSN
1611-2482 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2497826135
Cited by
81
References
0
Citations by year
2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.68
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cognitive technologies (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Bayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Keywords
computational logic, machine learning, inductive logic programming, knowledge representation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review