MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965412610 · doi:10.1155/2014/801791

The High Contact Principle with Reward Functions Involving Initial Points

2014· article· en· W1965412610 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Problems in Engineering · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptimization and Search Problems
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersChina Postdoctoral Science FoundationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCentral University of Finance and EconomicsNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaBeijing Municipal Office of Philosophy and Social Science Planning
KeywordsConstant (computer programming)Point (geometry)Class (philosophy)MathematicsProcess (computing)Applied mathematicsCalculus (dental)Mathematical analysisComputer scienceGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines a class of general optimal stopping problems in which reward functions depend on initial points. Two points of view on the initial point are introduced: one is to view it as a constant, and the other is to view it as a constant process starting from the point. Based on the two different views, two versions of the generalized high contact principle are derived. Finally, we apply the generalized high contact principle to one example.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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