Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belief revision is the process in which an agent incorporates a new piece of information together with a pre-existing set of beliefs. When the new information comes in the form of a report from another agent, then it is clear that we must first determine whether or not that agent should be trusted. In this paper, we provide a formal approach to modeling trust as a pre-processing step before belief revision. We emphasize that trust is not simply a relation between agents; the trust that one agent has in another is often restricted to a particular domain of expertise. We demonstrate that this form of trust can be captured by associating a state-partition with each agent, then relativizing all reports to this state partition before performing belief revision. In this manner, we incorporate only the part of a report that falls under the perceived domain of expertise of the reporting agent. Unfortunately, state partitions based on expertise do not allow us to compare the relative strength of trust held with respect to different agents. To address this problem, we introduce pseudometrics over states to represent differing degrees of trust. This allows us to incorporate simultaneous reports from multiple agents in a way that ensures the most trusted reports will be believed.
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 | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".