Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we study the ranking algorithm used by Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA); we analyze the parameters that it currently uses, show the formal probabilistic model from which it can be derived, and optimize the latter. In particular, analyzing games since the introduction of the algorithm in 2018, we conclude that game’s “importance” (defined by FIFA and used by the algorithm) is counterproductive from the point of view of the predictive capacity of the algorithm. We also postulate that the algorithm should be rooted in the formal modeling principle, where the Davidson model proposed in 1970 seems to be an excellent candidate, preserving the form of the algorithm currently used. The results indicate that the predictive capacity of the algorithm is considerably improved by using the home-field advantage (HFA), as well as the explicit model for the draws in the game. Moderate but notable improvement may be achieved by introducing the weighting of the results with the goal differential, which, although not rooted in a formal modeling principle, is compatible with the current algorithm and can be tuned to the characteristics of the football competition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it