MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comment on “Dynamic Opinion Model and Invasion Percolation”

2012· letter· en· W2328078749 on OpenAlexaff
Arsalan Sattari, Maya Paczuski, Peter Grassberger

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2012
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercolation (cognitive psychology)Statistical physicsPhysicsPercolation thresholdTheoretical physicsCondensed matter physicsMathematical economicsQuantum mechanicsMathematicsPsychologyNeuroscienceElectrical resistivity and conductivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In J. Shao et al., PRL 103, 108701 (2009) the authors claim that a model with majority rule coarsening exhibits in d=2 a percolation transition in the universality class of invasion percolation with trapping. In the present comment we give compelling evidence, including high statistics simulations on much larger lattices, that this is not correct. and that the model is trivially in the ordinary percolation universality class.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.002
Research integrity0.0390.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.007

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207