MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411777705 · doi:10.1093/logcom/exaf034

Relations enumerable from positive information

2025· article· en· W4411777705 on OpenAlexafffund
Barbara F. Csima, Luke MacLean, Dino Rossegger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Logic and Computation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputability, Logic, AI Algorithms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaÖsterreichische Agentur für Internationale Mobilität und Kooperation in Bildung, Wissenschaft und ForschungAustrian Science FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsRecursively enumerable languageComputer scienceProgramming languageAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study countable structures from the viewpoint of enumeration reducibility. Since enumeration reducibility is based on only positive information, in this setting it is natural to consider structures given by their positive atomic diagram—the computable join of all relations of the structure. Fixing a structure ${\mathcal{A}}$, a natural class of relations in this setting are the relations $R$ such that $R^{\hat{\mathcal{A}}}$ is enumeration reducible to the positive atomic diagram of $\hat{\mathcal{A}}$ for every $\hat{\mathcal{A}}\cong{\mathcal{A}}$ – the relatively intrinsically positively enumerable (r.i.p.e.) relations. We show that the r.i.p.e. relations are exactly the relations that are definable by $\varSigma ^{p}_{1}$ formulas, a subclass of the infinitary $\varSigma ^{0}_{1}$ formulas. We then introduce a new natural notion of the jump of a structure and study its interaction with other notions of jumps.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Logic and ComputationSame topicComputability, Logic, AI AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207