A systematic comparison of flat and standard cascade-correlation using a student–teacher network approximation task
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
Cascade-correlation (cascor) networks grow by recruiting hidden units to adjust their computational power to the task being learned. The standard cascor algorithm recruits each hidden unit on a new layer, creating deep networks. In contrast, the flat cascor variant adds all recruited hidden units on a single hidden layer. Student–teacher network approximation tasks were used to investigate the ability of flat and standard cascor networks to learn the input–output mapping of other, randomly initialized flat and standard cascor networks. For low-complexity approximation tasks, there was no significant performance difference between flat and standard student networks. Contrary to the common belief that standard cascor does not generalize well due to cascading weights creating deep networks, we found that both standard and flat cascor generalized well on problems of varying complexity. On high-complexity tasks, flat cascor networks had fewer connection weights and learned with less computational cost than standard networks did.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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