MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976033787 · doi:10.1103/physreve.68.047102

Topology and computational performance of attractor neural networks

2003· article· en· W1976033787 on OpenAlex
Patrick N. McGraw, Michael Menzinger

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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractorNetwork topologyComputer scienceArtificial neural networkTopology (electrical circuits)Relation (database)Small-world networkFunction (biology)Theoretical computer scienceRandom walkScale (ratio)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsComplex networkData miningComputer networkCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To explore the relation between network structure and function, we studied the computational performance of Hopfield-type attractor neural nets with regular lattice, random, small-world, and scale-free topologies. The random configuration is the most efficient for storage and retrieval of patterns by the network as a whole. However, in the scale-free case retrieval errors are not distributed uniformly among the nodes. The portion of a pattern encoded by the subset of highly connected nodes is more robust and efficiently recognized than the rest of the pattern. The scale-free network thus achieves a very strong partial recognition. The implications of these findings for brain function and social dynamics are suggestive.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.284 · 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