MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091755654 · doi:10.1190/1.1885507

Neural networks and AVO

2002· article· en· W2091755654 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

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryShell (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkComputer scienceSimple (philosophy)PerceptronInterpreterArtificial intelligencePlot (graphics)Nonlinear systemClass (philosophy)Machine learningMultilayer perceptronMathematicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this tutorial we will discuss how a neural network can solve a simple AVO problem. In doing so, we will shed light on two important questions: Why are some neural networks only able to solve linear problems (but others can solve nonlinear problems) and how can neural networks be trained to do these tasks? The type of neural network that we will use is the multilayer perceptron (MLP), sometimes called the multilayer feed-forward network (MLFN). The AVO problem that we will train the network to address is the recognition of a class 3 anomaly on an AVO attribute plot. As we shall see, training a computer to perform tasks that are simple for a human being (that is, an interpreter) can often be quite difficult. However, if we can train a computer to systematically and objectively interpret an AVO plot, it will be worth the effort.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.219 · 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