MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2236411098 · doi:10.1093/analys/anv076

A solution to the donkey sentence problem

2015· article· en· W2236411098 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

VenueAnalysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDonkeySentenceMedia studiesComputer scienceArtLibrary scienceHistorySociologyArtificial intelligenceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original appeared as "A Solution to the Donkey Sentence Problem" Analysis 2015, 75 (4): 554-557.It contained a mistake, pointed out to me by Thomas Ede Zimmermann.A correction will appear in the journal.This version incorporates the correction, in a way that produces a better formulation of the general idea.)The problem is that some conditionals use the singular indefinite article in a way that seems both like an existential and a universal quantifier.But it can't be both.In fact it can't be either.For example, (*) if he has a gun he'll fire it at the police (So don't let him anywhere near the demo.)This cannot be $x (.Gx & Fx.)

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 score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.224 · 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