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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, a provocative claim was published that number sense spontaneously emerges in a deep neural network trained merely for visual object recognition. This has, if true, far reaching significance to the fields of machine learning and cognitive science alike. In this paper, we prove the above claim to be unfortunately incorrect. The statistical analysis to support the claim is flawed in that the sample set used to identify number-aware neurons is too small, compared to the huge number of neurons in the object recognition network. By this flawed analysis one could mistakenly identify number-sensing neurons in any randomly initialized deep neural networks that are not trained at all. With the above critique we ask the question what if a deep convolutional neural network is carefully trained for numerosity? Our findings are mixed. Even after being trained with number-depicting images, the deep learning approach still has difficulties to acquire the abstract concept of numbers, a cognitive task that preschoolers perform with ease. But on the other hand, we do find some encouraging evidences suggesting that deep neural networks are more robust to distribution shift for small numbers than for large numbers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it