MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404601874 · doi:10.1007/978-3-476-05416-6_17

Modularität

2024· book-chapter· de· W4404601874 on OpenAlexaff
Verena Gottschling

Bibliographic record

VenueJ.B. Metzler eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languagede
FieldComputer Science
Topicsemigroups and automata theory
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Die Debatte darum, ob der Geist aus Modulen besteht, ist die Frage nach der kognitiven Architektur des Geistes, also die Frage, aus welchen Elementen der Geist aufgebaut ist und wie Forschung dazu aussehen kann. Eine der bekannten gegenwärtigen Hypothesen dazu ist der Versuch, Elemente der Evolutionstheorie in die Philosophie des Geistes einzubeziehen: Die Bausteine des Geistes seien nicht die klassischen in der Kognitionswissenschaft angenommenen Funktionen (Entscheiden, Lernen, Induktion usw.), vielmehr bestehe der Geist aus einer Vielzahl von spezifischeren, durch natürliche Selektion geformten ‚Modulen‘. Es gibt also nicht eine Einheit, die bereichsübergreifend für alle Entscheidungen unabhängig von deren Inhalt verantwortlich ist, stattdessen gibt es ein Modul für potenzielle Partnerentscheidungen und viele andere evolutionär relevante Entscheidungen.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.023

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJ.B. Metzler eBooksSame topicsemigroups and automata theoryFrench-language works237,207