MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770922882 · doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00550

The Matter Simulation (R)evolution

2018· review· en· W2770922882 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Central Science · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsSophisticationComputer scienceWitnessPerspective (graphical)Artificial intelligenceMaturity (psychological)RoboticsData sciencePolitical scienceSociologyLawRobotSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, the program for the development of methods and models for atomistic and continuum simulation directed toward chemicals and materials has reached an incredible degree of sophistication and maturity. Currently, one can witness an increasingly rapid emergence of advances in computing, artificial intelligence, and robotics. This drives us to consider the future of computer simulation of matter from the molecular to the human length and time scales in a radical way that deliberately dares to go beyond the foreseeable next steps in any given discipline. This perspective article presents a view on this future development that we believe is likely to become a reality during our lifetime.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.008

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.318 · 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