MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953974932 · doi:10.22215/etd/2015-11045

Impartial Intersection Restriction Games

2015· dissertation· en· W2953974932 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa A. Huggan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombinatoricsCombinatorial game theoryGraphMathematicsArc (geometry)Intersection (aeronautics)Computer scienceSequential gameGame theoryMathematical economicsEngineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intersection restriction games are games played on hypergraphs in which options for a player are restricted based on previous play via some intersection property.This paper focuses on two games within this class: Arc-Kayles and a Triple Packing game.Arc-Kayles is a game where, on their turn, players remove an edge and all adjacent edges from a graph.Together, players are forming a maximal matching.The Triple Packing game is a combinatorial design game where players are choosing triples such that no two triples chosen share a pair.Both games are played under normal play.We give new results for Arc-Kayles played on a special star graph and the wheel graph as well as partial results for the Triple Packing game played on the complete graph.I would also like to thank my examination committee members for their suggestions and thought-provoking questions throughout my thesis defence.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207