MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484734702 · doi:10.1609/aimag.v34i2.2474

The Annual Computer Poker Competition

2013· article· en· W1484734702 on OpenAlexaff
Nolan Bard, John Hawkin, Jonathan Rubin, Martin Zinkevich

Bibliographic record

VenueAI Magazine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsVerafin (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Competitor analysisBenchmarkingField (mathematics)Event (particle physics)Computer scienceOperations researchData scienceEngineeringMarketingBusinessMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Now entering its eighth year, the Annual Computer Poker Competition (ACPC) is the premier event within the field of computer poker. With both academic and nonacademic competitors from around the world, the competition provides an open and international venue for benchmarking computer poker agents. We describe the competition's origins and evolution, current events, and winning techniques

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.028

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAI MagazineSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207