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
In the context of decision making under uncertainty, I formalize the concept of analogy: an analogy between two decision problems is a mapping that transforms one problem into the other while preserving the problem’s structure. After identifying the basic structure of a decision problem, I introduce the concepts of analogical reasoning operator and of analogical reasoning preference. The former maps the decision problem at hand into a family of decision problems, which are analogous to the problem under consideration. The latter is the result of aggregating the various analogies. I provide several representations (in decreasing order of generality) of the analogical reasoning operators. After introducing two mild assumptions on the aggregators of analogies, I characterize analogical reasoning (AR) preferences. I give several examples of AR preferences and of the associated aggregators. These include Gilboa-Schmeidler similarities, Choquet integrals, and quantiles. Finally, I show that the class of monotone continuous invariant biseparable (MCIB) preferences (which includes many popular models of decision making under uncertainty) has an important stability property: any MCIB preference is an AR preference; conversely, every AR preference that results from aggregating MCIB preferences is an MCIB preference.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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