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
Inspired by the behavior of social insects, we tackle the problem of sorting objects with a group of robots under the control of reactive behaviors. Our control algorithm is based on earlier studies of this problem, but depends on more sensing than previous minimalist solutions. With additional sensing information and our simple behavioral rules, we empirically demonstrate that our control algorithm is able to create a complete separation of objects of two different classes. Through simulation, we also show the robust convergence of the sorting process, which previous algorithms could not achieve. This result is independent of the number of robots participating in the task, the initial configuration of the world, and the number of objects to be sorted. We also show indirectly that sorting is not a strictly cooperative task in the sense that even a single robot is capable of performing the task, though at a reduced pace. Finally, we present a model that characterizes the growth of object clusters, which can be used to understand the dynamics of the sorting process
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) | 0.000 | 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