MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161122238 · doi:10.1142/s021821300600262x

GENERICITY IN EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION SOFTWARE TOOLS: PRINCIPLES AND CASE-STUDY

2006· article· en· W2161122238 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsComputer scienceEvolutionary computationSoftware engineeringSoftwareGenetic programmingEvolutionary algorithmSoftware developmentEvolutionary programmingComputationGenetic representationTheoretical computer scienceArtificial intelligenceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with the need for generic software development tools in evolutionary computations (EC). These tools will be essential for the next generation of evolutionary algorithms where application designers and researchers will need to mix different combinations of traditional EC (e.g. genetic algorithms, genetic programming, evolutionary strategies, etc.), or to create new variations of these EC, in order to solve complex real world problems. Six basic principles are proposed to guide the development of such tools. These principles are then used to evaluate six freely available, widely used EC software tools. Finally, the design of Open BEAGLE, the framework developed by the authors, is presented in more detail.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.247 · 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