MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300162319 · doi:10.52842/conf.acadia.2013.200

Stigmergic Space

2013· article· en· W4300162319 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

VenueACADIA quarterly · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSlime Mold and Myxomycetes Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceTask (project management)Artificial intelligenceCollective intelligenceDecision makerProduct (mathematics)Operations researchHuman–computer interactionManagement scienceKnowledge managementSystems engineeringEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a multi-agent approach to space planning. Using the algorithm as a primary design tool, it posits to model an active site of programmable collective intelligence—one that is able to inform its own development internally. The mechanisms of self-organization from ants, termites, slime molds and other social organisms are examined and adapted to solve spatial adjacencies amongst elements of a given programmatic brief. Spatial organization becomes the emergent product of a competitive ecology. The task of space planning, one that is typically carried out by a singular high-level decision-maker (the architect, is approached through the distributed decision-making of low-level collective intelligence. This approach facilitates the design of a problem with high levels of complexity and competing requirements.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.006

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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