MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011276709 · doi:10.1142/s0129054114400152

DESCRIPTIONAL COMPLEXITY IN ENCODED BLUM STATIC COMPLEXITY SPACES

2014· article· en· W2011276709 on OpenAlexaff
Cezar Câmpeanu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiomMathematicsDescriptive complexity theoryComplexity classQuantum complexity theoryDiscrete mathematicsTheoretical computer scienceComputer scienceTime complexityQuantumQuantum information

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithmic Information Theory is based on the notion of descriptional complexity known as Chaitin-Kolmogorov complexity, defined in the '60s in terms of minimal description length. Blum Static Complexity spaces defined using Blum axioms, and Encoded Function spaces defined using properties of the complexity function, were introduced in 2012 to generalize the concept of descriptional complexity. In formal language theory we also use the concept of descriptional complexity for the number of states, or the number of transitions in a minimal finite automaton accepting a regular language, and apparently, this number has no connection to the general case of descriptional complexity. In this paper we prove that all the definitions of descriptional complexity, including complexity of operations, can be defined within the framework of Encoded Blum Static Complexity spaces, which extend both Blum Static Complexity spaces and Encoded Function spaces.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer ScienceSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207