MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202816997 · doi:10.1017/9781107358331.012

Dealing with Intractability

2019· book-chapter· en· W3202816997 on OpenAlexaff
Iris van Rooij, Mark Blokpoel, Johan Kwisthout, Todd Wareham

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBayesian Modeling and Causal Inference
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter we review different "coping strategies" that cognitive scientists have been adopting for dealing with the intractability\sind{intractability} of computational-level theories\sind{computational-level theories} and reflect on their validity and usefulness. We next turn to the question how the concepts and techniques from Chapters 2–7 can be useful tools for cognitive scientists to deal with intractability of computational-level theories of cognition in a constructive and conceptually coherent way.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicBayesian Modeling and Causal InferenceFrench-language works237,207