MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225508552 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.07365

Extending the team with a project-specific bot

2021· preprint· W4225508552 on OpenAlexaff
Théo Zimmermann, Julien Coolen, Jason Gross, Pierre-Marie Pédrot, Gaëtan Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2021
Typepreprint
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsPrevention of Organ Failure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess managementBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While every other software team is adopting off-the-shelf bots to automate\neveryday tasks, the Coq team has made a different choice by developing and\nmaintaining a project-specific bot from the ground up. In this article, we\ndescribe the reasons for this choice, what kind of automation this has allowed\nus to implement, how the many features of this custom bot have evolved based on\ninternal feedback, and the technology and architecture choices that have made\nit possible.\n

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.100 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207