MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508875552 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511619625.010

Smooth infinitesimal analysis as an axiomatic system

2008· book-chapter· en· W2508875552 on OpenAlexaff
John L. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2008
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfinitesimalAxiomNon-classical logicAxiomatic systemCalculus (dental)Logical analysisMathematicsLogical frameworkComputer scienceLogical consequenceMathematical economicsEpistemologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At several points we have had occasion to note the fact that logic in smooth worlds differs in certain subtle respects from the classical logic with which we are familiar. These differences have not been obtrusive, and in developing the calculus and its applications in a smooth world it has not been necessary to pay particular attention to them. Nevertheless, it is a matter of logical interest to examine these differences a little more closely, and also to formulate an explicit description of the logical system which underpins reasoning in smooth worlds. As explained in the Introduction, any smooth world may be taken to be a certain type of category called a topos , which may be thought of as a model for mathematical concepts and operations in much the same way as the universe of set theory serves as such a model. In particular, will contain an object, which we shall denote by Ω, playing the role of the set of truth values. In set theory, Ω is the set 2 consisting of two distinct individuals true and false ; we assume that, in, Ω contains at least two such distinct individuals. Now the key property of Ω in any topos is that (just as in set theory) maps from any given object X to Ω correspond exactly to parts of X , the map with constant value true corresponding to X itself, and the map with constant value false corresponding to the empty part of X .

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Methods
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods · Other

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicMathematical and Theoretical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207