MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956106639 · doi:10.5381/jot.2019.18.3.a3

Domain-Specific Model Distance Measures.

2019· article· en· W2956106639 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

VenueThe Journal of Object Technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftAustrian Science FundBundesministerium für Digitalisierung und WirtschaftsstandortÖsterreichische Nationalstiftung für Forschung, Technologie und Entwicklung
KeywordsComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much research was invested in the last decade to develop differencing methods to identify the changes performed between two model versions. Typically, these changes are captured in an explicit difference model. However, quantifying the distance between model versions received less attention. While different versions of a model may have the same amount of changes, their distance to the base model may be drastically different. Therefore, we present distance metrics for models. We provide a method to generate tool support for computing domainspecific distance measures automatically. We show the benefits of distance measures over model differences in the use case of searching for the explanation of model evolution in terms of domain-specific change operations. The results of our experiments show that using distance metrics outperforms the usage of common difference models.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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