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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the authors introduced in [1] a calculus of circular proofs for studying the computability arising from the following categorical operations: finite products and coproducts, initial algebras, final coalgebras. The calculus of [1] is cut-free; yet, even if sound and complete for provability, it lacks an important property for the semantics of proofs, namely fullness w.r.t. the class of natural categorical models called μ-bicomplete category in [2]. We fix, with this work, this problem by adding the cut rule to the calculus. To this goal, we need to modifying the syntactical constraints on the cycles of proofs so to ensure soundness of the calculus and at same time local termination of cut-elimination. The enhanced proof system fully represents arrows of the intended model, a free μ-bicomplete category. We also describe a cut-elimination procedure as a model of computation arising from the above mentioned categorical operations. The procedure constructs a cut-free proof-tree with infinite branches out of a finite circular proof with cuts. [1] Luigi Santocanale. A calculus of circular proofs and its categorical semantics. In Mogens Nielsen and Uffe Engberg, editors, FoSSaCS, volume 2303 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 357–371. Springer, 2002. [2] Luigi Santocanale. μ-bicomplete categories and parity games. Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 36:195–227, September 2002.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it