MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922402449 · doi:10.1177/13896911251320705

Editorial: New Ambition, Solving Chess

2024· article· en· W6922402449 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueICGA Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnology forecastingKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This year (2024) was the 50th birthday of the World Computer Chess Championships (WCCCs).The series started as a three-year event in Stockholm in 1974.At the second event (Toronto, 1977), Barend Swets and Ben Mittman launched the ICCA (International Computer Chess Association).Ben started also the ICCA Newsletter.It became a success and in 1983 the Newsletter transferred into a scientific journal called the ICCA Journal with continuation of the numbering (Vol.6, No. 3).The former chess World Champion Michael Botvinnik (1983) was prepared to guide us with his ideas on the future of computer chess: "chess will help not only in personality shaping but, indirectly, in controlling processes in the human society."[thus announcing the power of AI] 3 The Future (Soon and Far Away) Such honors bring also expectations.What will follow next?The scientific answer is twofold.First, the next goal is solving chess.To reach that goal we presumably need new technological developments (based on pattern/feature recognition).Second, here we might think of the development and application of quantum computing applicable to solving chess.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.368 · 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