1,670,554 research outputs found

    Attribute oriented induction with star schema

    Full text link
    This paper will propose a novel star schema attribute induction as a new attribute induction paradigm and as improving from current attribute oriented induction. A novel star schema attribute induction will be examined with current attribute oriented induction based on characteristic rule and using non rule based concept hierarchy by implementing both of approaches. In novel star schema attribute induction some improvements have been implemented like elimination threshold number as maximum tuples control for generalization result, there is no ANY as the most general concept, replacement the role concept hierarchy with concept tree, simplification for the generalization strategy steps and elimination attribute oriented induction algorithm. Novel star schema attribute induction is more powerful than the current attribute oriented induction since can produce small number final generalization tuples and there is no ANY in the results.Comment: 23 Pages, IJDM

    Fool me once: Can indifference vindicate induction?

    Get PDF
    Roger White (2015) sketches an ingenious new solution to the problem of induction. He argues from the principle of indifference for the conclusion that the world is more likely to be induction- friendly than induction-unfriendly. But there is reason to be skeptical about the proposed indifference-based vindication of induction. It can be shown that, in the crucial test cases White concentrates on, the assumption of indifference renders induction no more accurate than random guessing. After discussing this result, the paper explains why the indifference-based argument seemed so compelling, despite ultimately being unsound

    Comprehensive Induction or Add-on Induction: Impact on Teacher Practice and Student Engagement

    Get PDF
    In recent years, we have seen a rapid expansion of policies and resources devoted to new teacher induction. Most of these policies are based on an assumption that induction programs have a positive influence on teacher quality and student learning. Yet there is little evidence to support claims for such policies regarding the distinct components of induction programs or their effectiveness (Wang, Odell & Schwille, 2008). Scholars have argued for targeted mentoring that addresses the learning needs of beginning teachers with regard to instructional practice (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). Some suggest that induction efforts may increase teacher knowledge, student achievement, teacher satisfaction, and retention (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Fletcher, Strong & Villar, 2008; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004).There is, however, insufficient data to assist educators and policy makers in determining the most effective or critical components of induction programs. There is scant consensus around a number of induction issues, for example: the most effective mentoring condition (full-time or add-on mentoring); the amount of time required to enhance the development of beginning teachers; the amount of professional development mentors need to be effective; and the level of match (subject or grade level) required between mentor and beginning teacher. Furthermore, few studies explore the different components of induction and their effects on teacher and student outcomes.Given such a dearth of evidence and the current state of induction policy, this study was developed to examine differences in student engagement and teacher instructional practice in two types of induction conditions: comprehensive full-time induction and add-on induction. These two conditions differed in- the amount of mentor participation in professional development on induction;- the amount of time mentors could spend on structured observations, reflection, and feedback focused on pedagogy;- mentors' abilities to prioritize induction efforts;- mentors' abilities to serve as liaisons between beginning teachers and administrators; and- the amount of professional development mentors could offer beginning teachers.The goal of this study was to examine the instructional practice of beginning teachers who were mentored in these two conditions and to explore differences in instructional practice and student engagement

    Generic Fibrational Induction

    Full text link
    This paper provides an induction rule that can be used to prove properties of data structures whose types are inductive, i.e., are carriers of initial algebras of functors. Our results are semantic in nature and are inspired by Hermida and Jacobs' elegant algebraic formulation of induction for polynomial data types. Our contribution is to derive, under slightly different assumptions, a sound induction rule that is generic over all inductive types, polynomial or not. Our induction rule is generic over the kinds of properties to be proved as well: like Hermida and Jacobs, we work in a general fibrational setting and so can accommodate very general notions of properties on inductive types rather than just those of a particular syntactic form. We establish the soundness of our generic induction rule by reducing induction to iteration. We then show how our generic induction rule can be instantiated to give induction rules for the data types of rose trees, finite hereditary sets, and hyperfunctions. The first of these lies outside the scope of Hermida and Jacobs' work because it is not polynomial, and as far as we are aware, no induction rules have been known to exist for the second and third in a general fibrational framework. Our instantiation for hyperfunctions underscores the value of working in the general fibrational setting since this data type cannot be interpreted as a set.Comment: For Special Issue from CSL 201

    Induction and Natural Kinds Revisited

    Get PDF
    In ‘Induction and Natural Kinds’, I proposed a solution to the problem of induction according to which our use of inductive inference is reliable because it is grounded in the natural kind structure of the world. When we infer that unobserved members of a kind will have the same properties as observed members of the kind, we are right because all members of the kind possess the same essential properties. The claim that the existence of natural kinds is what grounds reliable use of induction is based on an inference to the best explanation of the success of our inductive practices. As such, the argument for the existence of natural kinds employs a form of ampliative inference. But induction is likewise a form of ampliative inference. Given both of these facts, my account of the reliability of induction is subject to the objection that it provides a circular justification of induction, since it employs an ampliative inference to justify an ampliative inference. In this paper, I respond to the objection of circularity by arguing that what justifies induction is not the inference to the best explanation of its reliability. The ground of induction is the natural kinds themselves
    • …