MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404492401 · doi:10.1002/jcd.21961

Tic‐Tac‐Toe on Designs

2024· article· en· W4404492401 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Designs · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMount Allison University
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We consider playing the game of Tic‐Tac‐Toe on block designs BIBD and transversal designs TD. Players take turns choosing points and the first player to complete a block wins the game. We show that triple systems, BIBD, are a first‐player win if and only if . Further, we show that for , TD is a first‐player win if and only if . We also consider a weak version of the game, called Maker–Breaker, in which the second player wins if they can stop the first player from winning. In this case, we adapt known bounds for when either the first or second player can win on BIBD and TD, and show that for Maker–Breaker, BIBD is a first‐player win if and only if . We show that TD is a second‐player win, and so the second player can force a draw in the regular game by playing the same strategy.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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