MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W99930124

The dynamics of fuzzy cellular automata: rule 30

2004· article· en· W99930124 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

VenueInternational Conference on Systems · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCellular Automata and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy ruleFuzzy logicMathematicsCellular automatonChaoticAperiodic graphFuzzy setDefuzzificationFuzzy numberType-2 fuzzy sets and systemsComputer scienceTheoretical computer scienceDiscrete mathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmCombinatorics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We continue the investigation into the dynamics and evolution of fuzzy rules, obtained by the fuzzification of the disjunctive normal form, and initiated for Rule 90 in [3] and continued for Rule 110 in [5]. We present new results regarding the dynamics of fuzzy Rule 30 whose Boolean evolution is known to be chaotic [[7], p. 871]. In particular, we show that in the fuzzy case with a finite support configuration all temporal sequences are aperiodic, and their convergence is strongly dependent upon their positions along key diagonals. It follows that fuzzy Rule 30 is neither chaotic nor random. It turns out that the evolution and dynamics in this case differ radically from those in fuzzy Rule 90.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.242 · 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