MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964840444 · doi:10.1080/0952813021000028621

A case study in the meta-reasoning procedure ND

2003· article· en· W1964840444 on OpenAlexaff
James Lu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, Andrew Shaffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCase-based reasoningArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new technique for improving the efficiency of propositional reasoning procedures is presented. The meta-search procedure, ND, is parameterized by a search procedure P and a real number for controlling the way in which P is applied to the given problem. Experiments using SATO on the domain of Crossword Puzzle Construction (CPC) illustrate the potential for ND. Variations of and future experiments with ND are discussed.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial IntelligenceSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207