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
The subject of artifact or tool use is considered in many fields to be a vital area of research in the study of general human competence. Recently in artificial intelligence, formalizations of the mental attitudes of intentional agents have been extended to include agent capabilities with respect to artifacts or tools. We consider understanding how these individual capabilities are learned and how they evolve as important steps towards formally defining, representing and implementing complex group capabilities. In this paper, a theoretical model for artifact capability is extended to incorporate evolution and learning through exploratory methods. A representation of artifacts and the cognition of a rational agent that can learn artifact use are provided. Supervised learning is assumed and combined with historical knowledge and genetic algorithms to provide an implementation of a multi-agent simulation. The simulation is built to support an agent with the ability to learn an artifact capability through observations of its own behavior, as well as through observations of other agents in a social environment. Results obtained from the simple yet practical approach, show that learned use of artifacts outperforms random use and rational agents can learn artifact use more efficiently as a social species than on their own.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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