MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970570705 · doi:10.4018/jcini.2007010104

Representing an Intrinsically Nonmetric Space of Compass Directions in an Artificial Neural Network

2007· article· en· W1970570705 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael R. W. Dawson, Patricia Boechler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHeading (navigation)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceCompassRepresentation (politics)Space (punctuation)Metric (unit)GeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the article is to train an artificial neural network to make a judgment that is intrinsically antisymmetric, and to determine how such a judgment is mediated by the network’s internal representations. One key component of navigation is judging the distance from one location to another. A second key component of navigation is judging heading – that is, judging the direction from one location to another. Importantly, heading judgments do not preserve the metric properties of space. In particular, they are antisymmetric: the judged heading from location x to location y should be opposite to the judged heading from location y to location x. What kind of representation can mediate such nonmetric navigational judgments? To explore this question, we trained an artificial neural network to judge the various bearings amongst 13 different cities in Alberta. We then interpreted the internal structure of this network in order to determine the nature of its internal representations. We found that he artificial neural network had developed a coarse directional code, and that one of the advantages of such coding was its ability to represent antisymmetric spatial regularities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural IntelligenceSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207