MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920906439 · doi:10.5206/uwomj.v87i2.1134

Biological Faithfulness is Unnecessary for Machine Learning

2019· article· en· W2920906439 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Meagan Wiederman

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Western Ontario Medical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBackpropagationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBlack boxFeature (linguistics)Machine learningArtificial neural networkTuring machineTuring testTuringCognitive sciencePsychologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of any device to take an input, like that of its environment, and work to achieve a desired output. Some advancements in AI have focused n replicating the human brain in machinery. This is being made possible by the human connectome project: an initiative to map all the connections between neurons within the brain. A full replication of the thinking brain would inherently create something that could be argued to be a thinking machine. However, it is more interesting to question whether a non-biologically faithful AI could be considered as a thinking machine. Under Turing’s definition of ‘thinking’, a machine which can be mistaken as human when responding in writing from a “black box,” where they can not be viewed, can be said to pass for thinking. Backpropagation is an error minimizing algorithm to program AI for feature detection with no biological counterpart which is prevalent in AI. The recent success of backpropagation demonstrates that biological faithfulness is not required for deep learning or ‘thought’ in a machine. Backpropagation has been used in medical imaging compression algorithms and in pharmacological modelling.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Western Ontario Medical JournalSame topicCell Image Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207