Generating New Beliefs From Old
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous work [BGHK92, BGHK93], we have studied the random-worlds approach -- a particular (and quite powerful) method for generating degrees of belief (i.e., subjective probabilities) from a knowledge base consisting of objective (first-order, statistical, and default) information. But allowing a knowledge base to contain only objective information is sometimes limiting. We occasionally wish to include information about degrees of belief in the knowledge base as well, because there are contexts in which old beliefs represent important information that should influence new beliefs. In this paper, we describe three quite general techniques for extending a method that generates degrees of belief from objective information to one that can make use of degrees of belief as well. All of our techniques are bloused on well-known approaches, such as cross-entropy. We discuss general connections between the techniques and in particular show that, although conceptually and technically quite different, all of the techniques give the same answer when applied to the random-worlds method.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".