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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A CAPTCHA is an automatically generated test designed to distinguish between humans and computer programs; specifically, they are designed to be easy for humans but difficult for computer programs to pass in order to prevent the abuse of resources by automated bots. They are commonly seen guarding webmail registration forms, online auction sites, and preventing brute force attacks on passwords. In the following, we address the question: How does adding a grey level to random CAPTCHA generation affect the utility of the CAPTCHA? We treat the problem of generating the random CAPTCHA as one of random field simulation: An initial state of background noise is evolved over time using Gibbs sampling and an efficient algorithm for generating correlated random variables. This approach has already been found to yield highly-readable yet difficult-to-crack CAPTCHAs. We detail how the requisite parameters for introducing grey levels are estimated and how we generate the random CAPTCHA. The resulting CAPTCHA will be evaluated in terms of human readability as well as its resistance to automated attacks in the forms of character segmentation and optical character recognition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it