MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124134446 · doi:10.65109/bnwt6293

Representing and reasoning about communicative conditional commitments

2013· article· W7124134446 on OpenAlexaff
Warda El Kholy, Mohamed El Menshawy, Hongyang Qu, Rachida Dssouli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormalism (music)Semantics (computer science)Set (abstract data type)Representation (politics)Frame (networking)Natural language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social commitments provide a powerful representation for modeling multi-agent interactions without relinquishing part of agents autonomy and flexibility. However, distinguishing between different but related types of conditional commitments, a natural frame of social commitments, is not considered yet. In this paper, we define a new logical language, CTLcc, which extends CTL with modalities to represent conditional commitments and their fulfillments using the formalism of interpreted systems. Such a language excludes the paradox that plagues the semantics of fulfilling commitments in the literature. We present a set of rules to reason about conditional commitments and their fulfillments.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.247 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207