MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028603410 · doi:10.1017/s0960129510000538

Foreword: special issue on coalgebraic logic

2011· article· en· W2028603410 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Structures in Computer Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Algebra and Logic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsEnthusiasmEvent (particle physics)ChinaComputer scienceEpistemologyPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophyLawPhysicsSocial psychologyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Coalgebraic Logic seminar took place between the 6th and 9th of December 2009 at the Leibniz Forschungszentrum Schloss Dagstuhl. The event was very well received, with more than 35 scientists from Europe, the United States, Canada and China attending, and with more than thirty presentations during the three days. Given the unforeseen enthusiasm of the meeting's reception, we thought that it would be a good idea for us to put together a special journal issue dedicated to this topic. We were also encouraged by the positive response we received from Guiseppe Longo, who indicated his interest in a special issue for Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , and here we are.

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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.807

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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