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
Contract scheduling is a general technique that allows the design of systems with interruptible capabilities, given an algorithm that is not necessarily interruptible. Previous work on this topic has assumed that the interruption is a worst-case deadline that is unknown to the scheduler. In this work, we study new settings in which the scheduler has access to some imperfect prediction in regards to the interruption. In the first setting, which is inspired by recent advances in learning-enhanced algorithms, the prediction describes the time that the interruption occurs. The second setting introduces a new model in which predictions are elicited as responses to a number of binary queries. For both settings, we investigate trade-offs between the robustness (i.e., the worst-case performance of the schedule if the prediction is generated adversarially) and the consistency (i.e., the performance assuming that the prediction is error-free). We also establish results on the performance of the schedules as a function of the prediction error.
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 | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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.
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