MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114779176 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17874760

Why Temperature Matters? The Three-Temperature Framework: A Pedagogical Model for Controlling Variability in Generative AI

2025· article· en· W7114779176 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarAnalogyRobustness (evolution)CreativityCorporate governanceRandomnessSecurity token

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The behavior of Generative AI models is fundamentally governed by the technical parameter known as temperature, which controls the randomness (variability) of token sampling.1 Because this parameter is poorly understood, users perceive AI outputs as inconsistent, unpredictable, and prone to hallucination, severely undermining trust and complicating regulatory compliance. This concept paper introduces The Three-Temperature Framework, a pedagogical model that translates the abstract technical setting into three concrete, intuitive, and platform-agnostic behavioral modes: Stability Mode (Low Temperature, e.g., $\approx$0–0.3): For tasks demanding precision, factual accuracy, and auditability (e.g., coding, governance-aligned documents). Balanced Mode (Medium Temperature, e.g., $\approx$0.4–0.7): For clear, nuanced, explanatory materials (e.g., teaching, communications). Creativity Mode (High Temperature, e.g., $\approx$0.8–1.0+): For tasks requiring imagination and unconventional ideation. Drawing an analogy from the evolution of early radio technology—where user-friendly controls transformed unstable broadcasts into reliable communication—the Framework provides a conceptual tuning mechanism for managing AI behavior. It directly addresses mandates for transparency, predictability, and robustness found in contemporary regulatory instruments (e.g., the EU AI Act). This paper serves as the foundational document for a proposed multi-site, international study. The Framework was conceived as a direct feedback from students following the author's keynote presentation on AI Governance at a recent multi-school international Hackathon, involving Humber Polytechnic (Canada), CBS International Business School (Germany), University of Salford (U.K.), and GEA College (Slovenia). The author is now seeking broader collaborators to test the Framework across various platforms and institutional contexts.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207