MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100307655 · doi:10.1145/1507244.1507252

Differential recursion

2009· article· en· W3100307655 on OpenAlexaff
Akitoshi Kawamura

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computational Logic · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)MathematicsAlgebra over a fieldComputable functionμ operatorPrimitive recursive functionComputationClass (philosophy)Differential (mechanical device)Computability theoryAlgebraic numberDiscrete mathematicsComputer sciencePure mathematicsAlgorithmRecursive functions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a redevelopment of the theory of real-valued recursive functions that was introduced by C. Moore in 1996 by analogy with the standard formulation of the integer-valued recursive functions. While his work opened a new line of research on analog computation, the original paper contained some technical inaccuracies. We discuss possible attempts to remove the ambiguity in the behavior of the operators on partial functions, with a focus on his “primitive recursive” functions generated by the differential recursion operator that solves initial value problems. Under a reasonable reformulation, the functions in this class are shown to be analytic and computable in a strong sense in computable analysis. Despite this well-behavedness, the class turns out to be too big to have the originally purported relation to differentially algebraic functions, and hence to C. E. Shannon's model of analog computation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Computational LogicSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207