FRIENDs: Brain-monitoring agents for adaptive socio-technical systems
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain-monitoring is quickly becoming an important field of research, with potentially significant impacts on how people will interact with technology. As understandings of the inner-workings of the brain become more accurate technologies are becoming more advanced, smaller, cheaper, and ubiquitous. It is expected that new forms of computing that take advantage of brain states will be developed. This will enable systems to be highly aware of user mental contexts (emotions, intentions, and moods). These systems would display higher autonomic behavior and would streamline user-interaction while managing the use of brain context data for applications and services. There are few studies of how to develop and make use of agent architectures in this new domain. Current approaches target a single user and application situation. To be ubiquitous it is unrealistic for applications to have specialized overhead for individual users. Personalizable, but distributed approaches are needed. To realize a general purpose agent for brain-monitoring and management of brain context is the goal of this work. This involves the selection of a brain-monitoring paradigm, the selection of an agent architecture paradigm, an inferencing mechanism, and the combination of the three towards a unified framework. Core motivations are discussed, and an early agent framework design (FRIEND) is presented, along with proposed proof-of-concept applications for using brain context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it