Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers a massive random access scenario in which a small set of k users out of a large number of n potential users are active at any given time, and a central base-station wishes to send a common message to the active users in order to label them into a finite number of categories. Specifically, given c possible categories, the base-station wishes to send label ℓ to a set of kℓusers, where ℓ ∈ {1, …, c} and $\sum\nolimits_{\ell = 1}^c {{k_\ell } = k} $. Assuming that n, k1, …, kcare fixed, we ask: what is the minimum rate of the common message that the base-station needs to send so that the correct label is received at each of the k active users? This paper shows that instead of a conventional scheme of listing the indices of the users followed by their labels, which requires a common message rate of $k\left( {\log (n) + H\left( {\frac{{{k_1}}}{k}, \ldots ,\frac{{{k_c}}}{k}} \right)} \right)$ bits, it is possible to construct a fixed-length common message code with a rate of just $kH\left( {\frac{{{k_1}}}{k}, \ldots ,\frac{{{k_c}}}{k}} \right)$ bits plus a term that scales in n as O(log log(n)) for fixed k1, …, kc, where H(•) is the entropy of a probability distribution. If a variable-length code is permitted, the minimum common message rate is characterized as $kH\left( {\frac{{{k_1}}}{k}, \ldots ,\frac{{{k_c}}}{k}} \right) + O(1)$ bits, with no dependence on n. Finally, if k1, …, kcdeviate from the values for which the common message is designed, an additional cost per user equal to a Kullback-Leibler divergence term would be incurred.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".