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
The dramatic decrease in price and increase in availability of hobbyist electronics has led to a wide array of embedded and interactive devices. While electronics have become more widespread, developing and prototyping the required circuitry for these devices is still difficult, requiring knowledge of electronics, components, and programming. In this paper, we present Trigger-Action-Circuits (TAC), an interactive system that leverages generative design to produce circuitry, firmware, and assembly instructions, based on high-level, behavioural descriptions. TAC is able to generate multiple candidate circuits from a behavioural description, giving the user a number of alternative circuits that may be best suited to their use case (e.g., based on cost, component availability or ease of assembly). The generated circuitry uses off-the-shelf, commodity electronics, not specialized hardware components, enabling scalability and extensibility. TAC supports a range of common components and behaviors that are frequently required for prototyping electronic circuits. A user study demonstrated that TAC helps users avoid problems encountered during circuit design and assembly, with users completing their circuits significantly faster than with traditional methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it