MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152388511 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2005.844089

Refractory Pulse Counting Processes in Stochastic Neural Computers

2005· letter· en· W2152388511 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDead timeBernoulli's principleBernoulli distributionPulse (music)Artificial neural networkStochastic processComputer scienceTransient (computer programming)DetectorRefractory periodControl theory (sociology)MathematicsStatisticsPhysicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunicationsRandom variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This letter quantitiatively investigates the effect of a temporary refractory period or dead time in the ability of a stochastic Bernoulli processor to record subsequent pulse events, following the arrival of a pulse. These effects can arise in either the input detectors of a stochastic neural network or in subsequent processing. A transient period is observed, which increases with both the dead time and the Bernoulli probability of the dead-time free system, during which the system reaches equilibrium. Unless the Bernoulli probability is small compared to the inverse of the dead time, the mean and variance of the pulse count distributions are both appreciably reduced.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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