MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395908759 · doi:10.29007/zd7s

Meaning Formulas for Syntax-Based Mathematical Algorithms

2018· article· en· W2395908759 on OpenAlexafffund
William M. Farmer

Bibliographic record

VenueEPiC series in computing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, programming, and type systems
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Statement (logic)Computer scienceSyntaxAlgorithmMathematical inductionTheoretical computer scienceMathematical logicMathematicsArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A meaning formula for a symbolic algorithm is a statement that captures the mathematical relationship between the input and output expressions of the algorithm. We examine how meaning formulas can be expressed and proved in a formal logic and how they can be used to represent mathematical knowledge and to define mathematical services.

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)0.005
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.020
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPiC series in computingSame topicLogic, programming, and type systemsFrench-language works237,207