Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forgetting has been addressed in various areas in KR, includ-ing classical logic, logic programming, modal logic, and de-scription logics. Here, we view forgetting as an abstract oper-ator, independent of the underlying logic. We argue that for-getting amounts to a reduction in the signature of a language of a logic, and that the result of forgetting elements of a sig-nature in a theory is the set of logical consequences over the reduced language. This definition offers several advantages. It provides a uniform approach to forgetting, applicable to any logic with a well-defined consequence relation. Obtained results are thus applicable to all subsumed formal systems, and typically are obtained much more straightforwardly. The approach also leads to insights with respect to specific logics: forgetting in first-order logic is somewhat different from the accepted approach; and the definition applied to logic pro-grams yields a new syntax-independent notion of forgetting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".