MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2204143132 · doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-8211-8_20

Analysis of Quickfind with Small Subfiles

2002· book-chapter· en· W2204143132 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

VenueBirkhäuser Basel eBooks · 2002
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAlgorithms and Data Compression
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordssortCutoffRecursion (computer science)Selection (genetic algorithm)Computer scienceAlgorithmElement (criminal law)MathematicsArtificial intelligenceInformation retrievalPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we investigate variants of the well-known Hoare’s Quickfind algorithm for the selection of the j-th element out of n when recursion stops for subfiles whose size is below a predefined threshold and a simpler algorithm is run instead. We provide estimates for the combined number of passes, comparisons and exchanges under three policies for the small subfiles: insertion sort and two variants of selection sort, but the analysis could be easily adapted for alternative policies. We obtain the average cost for each of these variants and compare them with the costs of the standard variant which does not use cutoff. We also give the best explicit cutoff bound for each of the variants.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.173 · 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