MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135089984 · doi:10.1109/time.2004.1314416

The SOL time theory: a formalization of structured temporal objects and repetition

2004· article· en· W2135089984 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Cukierman, James P. Delgrande

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTemporalityRepetition (rhetorical device)Formalism (music)TheoryConsistency (knowledge bases)Temporal logicTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageEpistemologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose to formally represent time with structured temporal objects. Structured temporal objects denote related time intervals (and recursively, related temporal objects) which are conceived as structured objects, rather than relations among such intervals. The major emphasis in this approach is on temporal repetition. To that effect, a new temporal object, the time loop, is defined. The intent of a time loop is to capture a structured notion of repetition. We propose a first order theory formalizing these objects. The building blocks of this formalism are time intervals and Allen's qualitative interval relations. We prove a number of key desirable results including the consistency of the theory, and extensively compare expressions in this theory with previous related work. We argue that this theory presents temporality and temporal repetition in a simple, commonsense manner. Furthermore, we argue that it presents an alternative, succinct and more general view than previous proposals to represent temporal repetition.

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)0.005
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.010
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207