MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976679120 · doi:10.1145/1473195.1473219

Introducing recursion by parking cars

2008· article· en· W1976679120 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Wirth

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)Mutual recursionFibonacci numberFocus (optics)Computer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsAlgebra over a fieldDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many approaches to teaching recursion in textbooks focus on classical examples such as Fibonacci, factorial, or the Towers of Hanoi. As established as these algorithms are, they don't really illustrate the potential of recursion. This paper explores the use of a novel recursive algorithm which requires innovative thinking, and the use of random numbers. The algorithm looks at the use of recursion to randomly park cars on a street.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGCSE BulletinSame topicAlgorithms and Data CompressionFrench-language works237,207