MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preface

2020· article· en· W4242509181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProsperityEngineering ethicsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceEngineeringManagementComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CCEAI 2020 was held in Singapore during Jan.17-19, 2020. CCEAI 2020 is organized by Asia Pacific Institute of Science and Engineering, sponsored by Fudan University. This conference aims to provide a platform for researchers and engineers to share their ideas, recent developments and successful practices in Control Engineering and Artificial Intelligence. The participants of the conference were from almost every part of the world, with background of either academia or industry, even well-known enterprise. The success and prosperity of the conference is reflected high level of the papers received. The proceedings are a compilation of the accepted papers and represent an interesting outcome of the conference. This book covers 2 chapters: 1. Artificial Intelligence; 2. Control and Automation. We would like to acknowledge all of those who supported CCEAI 2020. Each individual and institutional help were very important for the success of this conference. Especially we would like to thank the organizing committee for their valuable advices in the organization and helpful peer review of the papers. We sincerely hope that CCEAI 2020 will be a forum for excellent discussions that will put forward new ideas and promote collaborative researches. We are sure that the proceedings will serve as an important research source of references and the knowledge, which will lead to not only scientific and engineering progress but also other new products and processes. Dan Zhang, York University, Canada Conference Committee Chair

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.190 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207