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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, sophisticated domains are emerging which require appropriate formalisms to be specified accurately in order to reason about them. One such domain is constituted of smart contracts that have emerged in cyber physical systems as a way of enforcing formal agreements between components of these systems. Smart contracts self-execute to run and share business processes through blockchain, in decentralized systems, with many different participants. Legal contracts are in many cases complex documents, with a number of exceptions, and many subcontracts. The implementation of smart contracts based on legal contracts is a long and laborious task, that needs to include all actions, procedures, and the effects of actions related to the execution of the contract. An ongoing open problem in this area is to formally account for smart contracts using a uniform and somewhat universal formalism. This thesis proposes logical foundations to smart contracts using the Situation Calculus, a logic for reasoning about actions. Situation Calculus is one of the prominent logic-based artificial intelligence approaches that provides enough logical mechanism to specify and implement dynamic and complex systems such as contracts. Situation Calculus is suitable to show how worlds dynamically change. Smart contracts are going to be implement with Golog (written en Prolog), a Situation Calculus-based programming language for modeling complex and dynamic behaviors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it