MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6912221351 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3972829

Rethinking complexity

2020· article· en· W6912221351 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Privacy and Cybersecurity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecursion (computer science)Computational complexity theorySyntaxRecursive functionsComplexity classTime complexity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper addresses the nature of complexity of recursion. We consider four asymmetries involving caps on recursion observed in previous experimental acquisition studies, which argue that complexity cannot be characterized exclusively in terms of the number of iterations of Merge. While recursion is essentially syntactic and allowed for by the minimalist toolkit via Merge, selection, and labeling or projection, the complexity of recursive outputs arises at the interface.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.009

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.143 · 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