MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993915007 · doi:10.2178/jsl/1191333856

The settling-time reducibility ordering

2007· article· en· W1993915007 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Symbolic Logic · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCountable setMathematicsCombinatoricsSettlingEnumerationSequence (biology)Invariant (physics)Isomorphism (crystallography)Function (biology)Discrete mathematicsPhysicsCrystallographyChemistryMathematical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To each computable enumerable (c.e.) set A with a particular enumeration { A s } s ∈ω there is associated a settling function m A ( x ), where m A ( x ) is the last stage when a number less than or equal to x was enumerated into A . One c.e. set A is settling time dominated by another set B ( B > st A ) if for every computable function f , for all but finitely many x, m B ( x ) > f ( m A ( x )). This settling-time ordering, which is a natural extension to an ordering of the idea of domination, was first introduced by Nabutovsky and Weinberger in [3] and Soare [6]. They desired a sequence of sets descending in this relationship to give results in differential geometry. In this paper we examine properties of the < st ordering. We show that it is not invariant under computable isomorphism, that any countable partial ordering embeds into it. that there are maximal and minimal sets, and that two c.e. sets need not have an inf or sup in the ordering. We also examine a related ordering, the strong settling-time ordering where we require for all computable f and g , for almost all x, m B ( x ) > f ( m A ( g ( x ))).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.251 · 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