MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109392859 · doi:10.3989/loquens.2019.065

Sets, rules and natural classes: [ ] vs. { }

2019· article· en· W3109392859 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

VenueLoquens · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMusic and Audio Processing
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnificationComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Set (abstract data type)SubtractionTheoretical computer scienceNatural (archaeology)SingletonArtificial intelligenceMathematicsAlgorithmArithmeticProgramming languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss a set-theoretic treatment of segments as sets of valued features and of natural classes as intensionally defined sets of sets of valued features. In this system, the empty set { } corresponds to a completely underspecified segment, and the natural class [ ] corresponds to the set of all segments, making a feature ± Segment unnecessary. We use unification, a partial operation on sets, to implement feature-filling processes, and we combine unification with set subtraction to implement feature-changing processes. We show how unification creates the illusion of targeting only underspecified segments, and we explore the possibility that only unification rules whose structural changes involve a single feature are UG-compatible. We show that no such Singleton Set Restriction can work with rules based on set subtraction. The system is illustrated using toy vowel harmony systems and a treatment of compensatory lengthening as total assimilation.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.222 · 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