MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241715483 · doi:10.1145/1124706.1121510

Poker as a group project for artificial intelligence

2006· article· en· W4241715483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael R. Scheessele, Thomas Schriefer

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Games
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup (periodic table)Flexibility (engineering)Project-based learningComputer scienceQuarter (Canadian coin)Artificial intelligenceMathematics educationPsychologyOperations researchEngineeringManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assigning the development of a poker-playing agent as a group project allows flexibility with respect to the topics and techniques typically covered in an introductory Artificial Intelligence course. A poker agent project also provides students the experience of 'authentic' AI research, due to the status of poker as an 'unsolved' problem in AI. Despite this status, a poker agent project is feasible for a semester, half-semester, or quarter-long group project. Problems in assigning group projects are also considered, as are suggestions for mitigating these problems.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.745
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGCSE BulletinSame topicArtificial Intelligence in GamesFrench-language works237,207