12th Compiler-Driven Performance Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biometrical genetic analysis was applied to sibling and twin kinship data on 2 dimensions of perceived home environment. Correlations on 1 dimension, Restrictiveness-Permissiveness, were equal and significant for all kinships: MZ twins, DZ twins, same-sex siblings, and opposite-sex siblings significant for all 4 kinships: MZ twins, DZ twins, same-sex siblings, and opposite-sex siblings (r greater than .40). An E2-E1 biometrical model fitted Restrictiveness-Permissiveness, implying that treatments common to siblings create agreement about perceived environment. As intrapair differences were the same for all 4 kinships under this model, the equal environments assumption of the twin method was supported. In contrast, the Acceptance-Rejection dimension fitted a G-E1 model that makes the assumption that sibling similarity is the result of genetic factors and postulates an absence of shared environmental influences. This finding suggests that this aspect of home environment may depend as much on the child's inherited traits as on actual treatments and is in accord with the genetic analysis of individual traits in that developmentally effective environmental factors do not appear to be common to siblings.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".