MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064858 · doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4807562

The Environment as Theory: An Example Using the ACT-R/SOS Environment.

2004· article· en· W2064858 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

VenueInternational Conference on Cognitive Modelling · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most useful and clarifying ideas in cognitive modeling is Anderson’s (1993) schema for understanding cognitive models in terms of frameworks, theories and models. In this paper we propose that this schema is equally valuable for describing the environment that a cognitive model acts within. Physics provides us with the correct models for representing the physical environment. However, the interaction between cognition and the physical environment is mediated by transduction processes, which are not fully understood. Thus you cannot simply slap a physics model onto a cognitive model. One way of dealing with this is to assume a transduction model that delivers what the cognitive model needs. Another approach is to drop physics and transduction completely and model the environment as it appears to the cognitive system after transduction. This is the approach we took in creating SOS version 1.0

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.160 · 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