MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243469825 · doi:10.1093/logcom/exaa081

Tracking computability of GPAC-generable functions

2020· article· en· W4243469825 on OpenAlexaff
Diogo Poças, J. I. Zucker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Logic and Computation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersAlexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
KeywordsComputabilityComputationComputable analysisComputable functionMathematicsModel of computationComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Analog computation attempts to capture any type of computation, that can be realized by any type of physical system or physical process, including but not limited to computation over continuous measurable quantities. A pioneering model is the General Purpose Analog Computer (GPAC), initially presented by Shannon in 1941. The GPAC is capable of manipulating real-valued data streams; however, it has been shown to be strictly less powerful than other models of computation on the reals, such as computable analysis. In previous work, we proposed an extension of the Shannon GPAC, denoted LGPAC, designed to overcome its limitations. Not only is the LGPAC model capable of expressing computation over general data spaces $\mathcal{X}$, but it also directly incorporates approximating computations by means of a limit module. An important feature of this work is the generalisation of the framework of the computation theory from Banach to Fréchet spaces. In this paper, we compare the LGPAC with a digital model of computation based on effective representations (tracking computability). We establish general conditions under which LGPAC-generable functions are tracking computable.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Logic and ComputationSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207