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

Differential recursion

2009· article· en· W3100307655 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

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.026
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