MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2263847717

When Categorization is Ambiguous: Factors that Facilitate and Inhibit the Use of a Multiple (Versus Single) Category Inference Strategy

2004· article· en· W2263847717 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

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArabic Language Education Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationAmbiguityProduct (mathematics)Product categoryComputer sciencePhoneInferenceProcess (computing)Information retrievalArtificial intelligenceMathematicsLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior research has established that categorization plays a central role in new product learning (Sujan, 1985). Very little is known, however, about the operation of this commonly studied category-based learning process under conditions of categorization ambiguity. Categorization ambiguity exists when information about a new product makes it difficult or impossible to place the novel offering in a single, existing category. Many of the new technological innovations hitting the market today fit this profile, as they often combine the features and functionality of existing products to create a single hybrid product. For example, there are personal digital assistants (PDAs) with cell phone functions and cell phones with PDA functions. The categorization of these products is highly ambiguous because, in both cases, the hybrid could logically be considered either a PDA or a cell phone.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.189 · 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