MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125004756 · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2004.11.012

Algebra and Sequent Calculus for Epistemic Actions

2005· article· en· W2125004756 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandru Baltag, Bob Coecke, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSequent calculusSequentProof calculusMathematicsCut-elimination theoremCalculus (dental)ConstructiveAlgebra over a fieldSemantics (computer science)Algebraic semanticsNatural deductionComputer scienceDiscrete mathematicsPure mathematicsMathematical proofProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce an algebraic approach to Dynamic Epistemic Logic. This approach has the advantage that: (i) its semantics is a transparent algebraic object with a minimal set of primitives from which most ingredients of Dynamic Epistemic Logic arise, (ii) it goes with the introduction of non-determinism, (iii) it naturally extends beyond boolean sets of propositions, up to intuitionistic and non-distributive situations, hence allowing to accommodate constructive computational, information-theoretic as well as non-classical physical settings, and (iv) introduces a structure on the actions, which now constitute a quantale. We also introduce a corresponding sequent calculus (which extends Lambek calculus), in which propositions, actions as well as agents appear as resources in a resource-sensitive dynamic-epistemic logic.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic Notes in Theoretical Computer ScienceSame topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207