The Identification of Context-Sensitive Features: A Formal Definition of Context for Concept Learning
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
A large body of research in machine learning is concerned with supervised learning from examples. The examples are typically represented as vectors in a multi-dimensional feature space (also known as attribute-value descriptions). A teacher partitions a set of training examples into a finite number of classes. The task of the learning algorithm is to induce a concept from the training examples. In this paper, we formally distinguish three types of features: primary, contextual, and irrelevant features. We also formally define what it means for one feature to be context-sensitive to another feature. Context-sensitive features complicate the task of the learner and potentially impair the learner's performance. Our formal definitions make it possible for a learner to automatically identify context-sensitive features. After context-sensitive features have been identified, there are several strategies that the learner can employ for managing the features; however, a discussion of these strategies is outside of the scope of this paper. The formal definitions presented here correct a flaw in previously proposed definitions. We discuss the relationship between our work and a formal definition of relevance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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