Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to OOPSLA 2002 in Seattle, Washington, USA, November 4-8, 2002.We bring you the proceedings of the technical papers track of the 17th OOPSLA, whose history has started back in 1986. Despite OOPSLA having been held in the neighboring cities of Portland, Oregon and Vancouver. B.C. several times, this is the first time that OOPLSA has taken a trip to Seattle.Despite recent difficult times, including the tragic events of last year, there were a healthy number of technical track paper submissions - 125 submitted in total, and all the papers were reviewed with stringent acceptance criteria, what OOPSLA has been traditionally reputed for. In fact the reviews were more carefully than previous years - there were 4-5 reviewers assigned to each paper, and the reviewers were asked explicitly to give comprehensive reviews to benefit the authors. During the two full days of the PC meeting, each paper was discussed in detail, and at the end the program committee decided to accept 25 for publication and presentation at OOPSLA 2002.Of the 25, five are PC papers, i.e., papers whose authors include PC members. I must make a note that in fact they were held to higher standard than normal paper acceptance. There were a number of PC papers submitted this year, and steps were taken to assure fairness, so that being on the PC never became an advantage. For example, more reviewers were assigned to PC papers - from 5 reviewers up to 8, and a special session was held during the PC meeting to discuss individual PC submissions in full anonymity. Also, the evaluation criteria itself was held to a higher, more stringent standard; as such the higher number of PC paper acceptance merely exemplifies that the PC members themselves were top, active researchers in the OO field, performing quality work for themselves.The PC meeting was held on the Microsoft Campus during May 3-4th in Redmond, WA, courtesy of Microsoft who provided various administrative as well as financial supports for the PC, to which OOPSLA acknowledges with deepest appreciation for their generosity. It is quite satisfying that one of the top software companies has decided to back OOPSLA in a significant way, demonstrating that OOPSLA is considered to be one of the premiere research and technology forums by the industry.Finally, I must mention that, just before the time of this writing we experienced the unfortunate, consecutive passing of the two Norwegian pioneers of object-oriented computing, namely professors Kristen Nygaard and O.J. Dahl. In fact, they had just received the honorable ACM Turing Award for their achievements, and Professor Nygaard was to present his Turing Award speech as a keynote for OOPSLA 2002. Their work in Simula-67 essentially initiated our field 35 years ago, and their successive work in Beta still influences many of the research presented at OOPSLA today. My deepest condolences to both families as well as many of our colleagues who were closely acquainted with them.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».