MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297094537 · doi:10.1111/tops.12625

Editors’ Introduction: Best Papers from the 19th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling

2022· article· en· W4297094537 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Cognitive Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCognitive Science and Mapping
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCognitionCognitive scienceComputational modelFocus (optics)Management scienceData scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyEngineeringNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Conference on Cognitive Modeling brings together researchers from around the world whose main goal is to build computational systems that reflect the internal processes of the mind. In this issue, we present the five best representative papers on this work from our 19th meeting, ICCM 2021, which was held virtually from July 3 to July 9, 2021. Three of these papers provide new techniques for refining computational models, giving better methods for taking empirical data and producing accurate computational models of the cognitive systems that produce them. The other two papers focus on explanation: using models to elucidate the underlying processes affecting cognition in such diverse domains as logical reasoning and the effects of caffeine.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.247 · 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